House of Lords Reform

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is their intention to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on reform of the House of Lords; and, if so, when.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Government have welcomed the report of the Royal Commission and made clear that they wish to give proper consideration to all the recommendations. That process is still continuing and, as noble Lords will be aware, we hope to proceed by consensus with other political parties on the next stage of reform. It would be premature to say whether the Government intend to accept any particular recommendations and, therefore, what legislation would be required.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, there is nothing unpredictable in that Answer. Therefore, I cannot bring myself to thank the noble Baroness for it. However, perhaps she will be kind enough at least to understand that what some of us fear most is that either we shall get a pale shadow of the present House of Commons or a body which is merely a convenience for the House of Commons. Either would be very nasty. I wonder whether the time has come when the Government, flushed with their constitutional triumphs to date, will feel encouraged to take them a step further.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I never aim to be unpredictable. Therefore, I am sure that I shall give the noble Lord another predictable answer for which, perhaps, he may be able to summon up some gratitude. I simply report that, as I am sure he is aware, there is an informal understanding between the usual channels in this House that we should have an early opportunity to debate this issue. I look forward very much to the noble Lord's contribution to that debate. I hope he looks forward to mine.

Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that not all of us share the gloomy view about the future of this House just expressed on the Opposition Benches? Some of us are quite hopeful and optimistic. To that extent, perhaps the Government may feel assured.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am most grateful for my noble friend's support. I hope that he will feel it appropriate to express that support at greater length when we come to debate the issue in, I hope, a very few weeks.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, will the Leader of the House accept that, as expressed in this Question, we do not want legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, or such of them as are acceptable to the Prime Minister, but legislation which will ensure that we get an effective second Chamber which is accountable properly to the people of this country?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that that is a general aim. As I said in my initial response to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that is why we very much hope to achieve consensus among all the political parties involved on a general approach to the second stage of reform.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, when my noble friend comes to examine the Royal Commission's report, perhaps I may ask that she should not be taken in by the siren calls from the Opposition, who suddenly seem to be taken by the novel constitutional principle that elected governments have no right to get their business through?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Opposition's view on both the short and long-term position on reform of your Lordships' House has, shall we say, been variable. In the spirit of genuine consensus which the Government now hope to achieve, I am sure that we shall be able to reach some kind of working arrangement on the way forward.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to consider that democratic accountability requires consideration of the way in which Members of the House of Commons are chosen by a tiny minority of political parties? Further, is she prepared to consider that the Whip is very strong, that independence is out and that Peers are more independent in this House? Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to consider that independence should exist in this House rather than in the other place?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the Government made clear in our White Paper, published just over a year ago, in the ensuing debates on what has now become the House of Lords Act and in the initial response to the Royal Commission that we intend that Cross-Bench contribution to this House should continue and that people who do not take a party Whip should be represented substantially in any reformed Chamber.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a Question such as this should be viewed with a degree of suspicion and certainly surprise coming, as it does, from an Opposition who defended the hereditary system for so long and now want to act in haste to make further changes?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, I have decided that in this debate it does not help to be unpredictable and, presumably, it does not help to be suspicious. I believe that it is right to start with a clean slate on the whole issue of reform of the second Chamber and proceed to a proper and full discussion. I agree with my noble friend that anything which is considered to be enacted in haste is unlikely to produce a generally accepted solution. As I have said in response to two supplementary questions, we hope that there will soon be an opportunity for general debate. That may be a more appropriate way to continue these discussions rather than in a Starred Question.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, in the light of the answer which the noble Baroness has just given, does she not agree that it was a mistake to appoint PricewaterhouseCoopers to oversee appointments to the new commission? Will the noble Baroness answer the question which I put on the last occasion on which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, raised this subject? How much are the Government paying PricewaterhouseCoopers to deal with the appointments to the commission and what are the contractual arrangements? Does she not believe that that too should be a matter of consensus?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have recently answered a Written Question about the fees to PricewaterhouseCoopers for its expert support to the Cabinet Office in relation to the logistics of making appointments to the appointments commission. I believe that it has been published in the Official Report. The details of the terms of reference for PricewaterhouseCoopers are given there, as well as the fees.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to hear my noble friend Lord Peyton asking these Questions. The Government asked the Royal Commission to report in record time. If they want to stop my noble friend asking questions, the best thing that they can do is to give a proper response to the Royal Commission. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tell me when that is likely to occur?
	Following on the question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, does the noble Baroness now regret that she did not come to this House to make a statement about setting up the Prime Ministerial appointments commission? On whose ministerial authority was some £100,000 plus committed to the PricewaterhouseCoopers recruitment campaign? Will she confirm that that same Minister agreed the wording of the advertisement?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord's request for an early opportunity for the Government to state their position, the Government have offered, through the usual channels, days for debate to the Opposition for precisely that purpose. I understand that the first date proposed was not convenient to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, he cannot be particularly concerned about the speed with which we respond.
	On the second point, no, we do not regret that we asked PricewaterhouseCoopers to assist us in the administration of that particular activity. Government departments have had such assistance over many years, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, when this matter was raised on a previous occasion. As I said in my Answer to the Written Question, Ministers gave general agreement to the appointment of that particular firm. The terms of the advertisement were agreed at very high levels within government.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am extremely glad that the Government have said that they will give a response to the Royal Commission when we debate the matter. However, the noble Baroness has missed the point of my second question. Does she regret that she did not make a statement to this House about asking PricewaterhouseCoopers to assist with the setting up of the appointments commission? Does she not believe that this House should have a role in deciding what should be the terms and conditions of the appointments commission?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we have dealt with this point on several occasions. As is customary in many such appointments arrangements, PricewaterhouseCoopers was asked by the Cabinet Office to provide some logistical help in relation to setting out the advertisements, preliminary sifting and so on for that commission. As I said, I have given the exact terms of reference and the scope for that firm in the Written Answer which has appeared in the Official Report.
	No, I do not regret that I did not come to explain to this House that rather immediate administrative arrangement made by the Cabinet Office. All the arrangements for the setting up of the appointments commission for the interim House were made clear in some detail in the White Paper published last January by the Government, and extensively discussed--I gave the noble Lord references--during Committee and Report stages of the House of Lords Bill.

British Coal Pension Fund: Surpluses

Lord Ezra: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How much money has accrued to them from their share of the profits of the British Coal pension fund; and whether this should be allocated to coalfield areas as additional funding for the rehabilitation and retraining of former mineworkers.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as a result of surpluses which have accrued in the two former British Coal pension schemes since 1994, the Government have to date received some £519 million. Her Majesty's Government receive 50 per cent of any scheme surpluses in exchange for underwriting 100 per cent of any downside risk in the event of deficits. Also, since 1994, the Government have paid around £400 million into the schemes in respect of deficiency and additional contribution commitments inherited from British Coal.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information. Is he aware that, in addition to the payments made so far, a reserve fund of nearly £4 billion has been built up in the pension fund accounts from which future payments to the Government will be made at not less than £250 million per year for many years ahead? That sum and the payments made so far are vastly in excess of anything that might have been anticipated and, indeed, in excess of any reasonable risk that the Government might run in having to meet future deficiencies in the pension fund.
	In those circumstances, and bearing in mind the need for additional assistance in the coalfield areas and also that further pit closures are contemplated, will the Government not consider that, out of that bonanza which has come their way, and which was not expected, further contributions should be made to help former mineworkers and mineworkers likely, shortly, to be out of a job?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, two sums are involved. I refer first to the £1.8 billion held in the investment reserves of the pension schemes, which comprises British Coal's unused share of the pre-1994 valuation surpluses, and which is being paid to the Government over a minimum of 25 years; and, secondly, to that being paid as a result of the 1994 valuation surpluses, which I have mentioned.
	As regards the balance of assets and liabilities which will accrue to the Government as a result of the privatisation of British Coal in 1994, we shall not know the amount of such balance for 30 to 40 years as this pension scheme will probably run for 50 to 60 years. To date, the balance has been in favour of the scheme and the Government. However, there is no reason to suppose that in future years it will not go the other way. As governments are to pick up the deficit, the policy of the pension fund trustees can be largely divested in high-risk equities which will benefit the coalminer pensioners. Unless the Government were to pick up the potential deficit, that would not be possible.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that when we sat through the extraordinary treatment of state/industry pension surpluses at the time of privatisation, some of us found the argument which the Minister has repeated totally unconvincing? It is no more convincing today. Is he aware of the negotiations on behalf of the former employees of the National Bus Company about their pension surpluses? Will the decision to make payments from such surpluses, to which the Government are now committed, be applied to pensioners of other former state-owned industries? To make it easy for him, does he not agree that the policy of the former government was a mistake?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the arrangements entered into under the schemes in 1994 were undertaken by the trustees of both schemes. As I understand it, the trustees continue to believe that such schemes are in the best interests of their members. Perhaps I may repeat that Her Majesty's Government have accepted a contingent liability in this case of over £17 billion. The safeguard provides for the trustees to be able aggressively to fund an equity-rich portfolio which would not normally be suitable for a mature pension fund of this sort.
	Ministers have also indicated that they will study the document from the Coalfield Communities Campaign carefully. I am sure that the trustees will do the same.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would take a particularly imaginative actuarial exercise for there to be any prospect of the Government finding money to sustain this fund, not least because of the relatively low life expectancy of most of those who have worked in the mining industry? Does he further agree that given the intensity of economic and social need which continues within the coalfields, it would be appropriate for the Government to allow a little more of that surplus to reach organisations such as the Coalfields Regeneration Trust which is capable of helping those areas to surmount the difficulties, which remain intense?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that it would require an imaginative actuary to suggest that there will be a turn-round. I agree that present circumstances appear to favour the Government. However, given that the fund may last for 50 to 60 years, it is not difficult to think of scenarios where the situation would reverse.
	The balance of assets and liabilities in the trust is a separate question from the amount that the Government should appropriately invest in the regeneration of coalfields. As at present, that amount should be properly generous. In December 1998, the Government announced an investment package of £354 million, which was substantial. As I have said, this subject can always be debated but it is independent of the question of what finally turns out to be the balance of assets and liabilities in the particular pension funds.

Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I asked a similar Question some months ago? Since that time the fund has continued to accrue many more millions. Given the figures he has quoted, I am not entirely convinced that there is not room to meet the point of the Question. Everybody in the former coalfield areas appreciates the generous help given by the Government. However, is the Minister aware of the large pool of unemployed miners, most of whom are young people? The older miners received fairly generous redundancies. Will the Minister give an assurance that the matter will seriously be considered again?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I have said, Ministers have made it clear, and will continue to do so, that they will listen to concerns raised. They will study the document from the Coalfield Communities Campaign seriously, as, indeed, will the trustees.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the key issue underlying the question of pension schemes is that the workers believe that pension contributions are deferred pay? As a consequence, when employers seem to be taking the lion's share, whether in the coal industry or any other industry, that is seen to be grossly unfair by the workers in such industries?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I understand that this was a defined benefit scheme. Therefore, the liability on both the Coal Board and the Government, who have accepted the responsibility, is properly to fund those benefits, including any bonuses payable because of the upward valuation of the fund. That is a responsibility of the Coal Board of the past and of the government of the future which will be discharged, whatever the circumstances, over the long life of the fund.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, it seems that it would be possible for part of the Government's share of the surpluses to be transferred to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. As I understand it, £10 million has already been transferred. My contention is that £10 million is paltry in relation to the sums to which we are referring. As there would appear to be a mechanism for such transfers, could not the Government contemplate transferring a little more?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is always possible for the Government to make such a payment in the circumstances referred to by the noble Lord. I agree that there was a payment of £10 million which, in the total sum of all the payments, seems to be de minimis. It is always in the power of the Government to make a gift of money to the coalfields campaign or the trust from general government funds.

Health Development Agency

Baroness Massey of Darwen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the role and responsibilities of the new Health Development Agency.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Health Development Agency will play an important role in supporting the Government's health strategy. The agency will establish robust evidence on what works in public health and communicate that to the field; advise on developing standards for public health; and support public health agencies and workers in improving public health.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his useful reply. Perhaps I may ask one or two supplementary questions. The first relates to the recent excellent debate on the National Health Service instigated by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. It seems to me that, as well as managing illness, we should manage health. Will the Health Development Agency remain a special health authority promoting healthy lifestyles and campaigns for health on such topics as coronary heart disease and smoking?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Health Development Agency will be a special health authority. Its three core functions will be: to ensure that, as regards health promotion, we have the best available research on what works and what does not work; to develop and advise on the setting of standards; and to build capacity in relation to those people in the field who have to develop health promotion programmes. I believe that much emphasis should be given to the latter responsibility. As regards its predecessor, the Health Education Authority, there was a great deal of lack of emphasis and focus in assisting people engaged at local level in those areas.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister will recall that in the last annual report of the Health Education Authority, Yve Buckland, the new chair of the Health Development Authority stated:
	"The HDA will be charged with helping to address health inequalities and with mapping the evidence base for public health and health improvement".
	Can the Minister confirm that part of that evidence base will be the recent report entitled The Widening Gap which demonstrates that the greatest factor in ill-health is poverty, that the wealth gap is still rising, and that the key way to tackle ill-health is to tackle poverty?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the new Health Development Agency will be charged with obtaining the best available evidence on matters relating to the improvement of public health. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the inequalities in health in our society. But this Government's policy developments in relation to the New Deal, child benefits and social exclusion are designed to tackle the issues of poverty, which in turn will tackle the issues of poor health.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, bearing in mind the importance of mapping exercises and the exchange of information, can the Minister tell us what the relationship of the agency will be with the health promotion bodies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, each country in the UK has its own arrangements for health promotion, but it will be important that all agencies work well together. We will ensure that the new Health Development Agency is given every encouragement to promote that relationship and will monitor its performance in that and in other aspects.

Lord Rea: My Lords, can my noble friend say how the Health Development Agency will co-operate with the new Food Standards Agency and how the tasks of each will be allocated?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important matter. The duties of the Food Standards Agency on matters of nutrition was set out clearly in the White Paper, Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change. The agency will have a major role in nutrition. It will also have to work closely with health departments which continue to lead on wider, public health agenda matters. We will expect both agencies to work well together to ensure that the advice they give is both consistent and effective.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, some years ago we had a Health Education Council which was perceived by the government of the day as being ineffective in performing its role. It was then replaced by a Health Education Authority. Now that authority is to be replaced by an agency. Can the Minister tell us in what way the terms of reference of this agency differ from those of its predecessor and can he give us an assurance that it will be more effective in fulfilling its major role?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord puts his finger on an important consideration; that is, the performance both of the Health Education Council and the Health Education Authority over a good many years. It is my experience that, although the Health Education Authority performed a valuable role in certain areas, it could not be said to have been an unqualified success. The Health Education Authority's campaigning role got in the way of a more considered policy development role. First, in relation to the Health Development Agency, its emphasis on the establishment of robust evidence of what works in health promotion and public health will be crucial. Secondly, we are determined to ensure that the agency gives all the support it can to people engaged in health promotion work. I am afraid that neither the Health Education Council nor the Health Education Authority enjoyed sufficient credibility with those charged with improving health at local level.

Earl Howe: My Lords, will the general public be able to gain direct access to the information that the agency compiles?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Health Development Agency will be able to draw together information which is of value both to agencies and to the public. We expect the public to have access to that information.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the quality of housing is something in which the new agency will take an interest?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, many factors bear on the state of health of people in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested, poverty is one of those factors and lack of housing or poor housing is also relevant. I have no doubt that, if the agency is charged with obtaining robust evidence in relation to those issues, it will be able to do so. However, I stress that the Government decide upon the priorities to be pursued, not the agency. Having said that, the agency will provide as much information as possible in that regard. Of course housing is an important consideration in the attack on poverty and ill health.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the Minister take steps to ensure that the research work of the development agency does not duplicate that of other bodies engaged in the research field?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that the agency should not duplicate work being done elsewhere. I expect agencies in other UK countries to share work and in some cases decide that one country should concentrate on one area and another country on another. The sharing of information and the avoidance of duplication is extremely important.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, as it is St Valentine's Day, does not the Minister agree with my noble friend that a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet?

Representation of the People Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [New system of electoral registration]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 17, after first ("a") insert ("British citizen or a").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendment No. 1 simply states that the words "British citizen" ought to be added to the Bill. I was surprised when I came to read the Bill to find that the legislation setting out the right of a citizen of this country to be on the electoral register did not include the words "British citizen". It says,
	"either a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland".
	The words, "British citizen" do not appear.
	At Second Reading I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, how it came about that those of us who are British citizens managed to get a vote. He said that we were subsumed in the words, "Commonwealth citizen". I do not feel that that is satisfactory. I wager that there are few countries in the world where the voting rights of its citizens do not appear on the face of the legislation which sets up its democratic system and where its citizens are subsumed in a wider definition, such as the definition of "Commonwealth citizen".
	That was the first point that struck me as odd. A second point about which I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, was the position in reverse. In other words, if I went to a Commonwealth country, would I be able to register immediately on their electoral roll and therefore have a vote in their elections? The noble Lord kindly wrote to me listing the countries where I would find that I had reciprocal voting rights. It is an interesting list but it hardly includes the major Commonwealth countries.
	It seems to be the case that the countries of the Caribbean--Antigua, Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines--give us those reciprocal rights. Can the Minister say whether they give us those rights on the same basis? In other words, if any of your Lordships were to go to those countries, would we be able to register immediately or would there be some other qualification? For example, in Malawi only after seven years' residence would your Lordships have the right to vote, in contrast to a Malawian citizen coming here who would have immediate rights to vote. I understand that a four-year residence period applies in Namibia.
	However, I gather that the system in New Zealand--and I should like the Minister to confirm this--operates on the same basis as our system; in other words, if a noble Lord were to go there, he would be entitled to vote immediately as a Commonwealth citizen and if a New Zealander were to come here he would also be entitled to vote immediately. The position in South Africa is qualified by the words "in certain circumstances", but I am not sure what they may be.
	Members of the Committee will notice that I have not mentioned those great Commonwealth countries, Canada, Australia, India and Pakistan, to name just a few, many of whose citizens come to this country. It seems to me that we do not have reciprocal rights. I wonder whether we are continuing with a pretty out-of-date concept in allowing those citizens to come here--that is, people who are not citizens of the United Kingdom--and register immediately. Indeed, are we not being rather foolish in not demanding a quid pro quo?
	However, there is more to it than that. Indeed, if that had been all, I probably would not have tabled these amendments. We should think back to the referendum legislation at the beginning of this Parliament when we had great discussions as to who should be eligible to vote in the referendums on setting up the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Noble Lords will remember that we had quite a heated debate as to whether overseas voters on the British electoral register--in other words, British citizens who live overseas and are registered on the register--would be allowed to vote in those referendums. The Government decided that they should not be allowed to do so and chose to use the local government register for the referendums.
	We have two registers. We have the parliamentary register, on which overseas voters are included, and we have the local government register from which they are excluded. It is the same register, but there are "marks in the margin". Of course, noble Lords are allowed to vote only in local government elections and not in parliamentary elections; indeed, noble Lords have a "mark in the margin". One day soon--that is, if the Government can ever pluck up enough courage--we may have a vote on whether or not the United Kingdom should join the euro. It seems to me fairly pertinent to ask: who should be entitled to vote in the referendum as to whether this country joins the euro? I can see the argument that would say that no citizen of the Union who is not a British citizen should be allowed to vote. Why should a citizen of France or Italy (countries which are already members of the euro) who is resident in this country have the right to decide whether we should join the euro?
	Should overseas voters--people who live in European countries and have a right to vote in British elections because they are British overseas voters, like my daughter who lives in Italy--have the right to vote for or against the euro? They may actually know more about how the euro works than anyone in Britain. That could be a good thing or it could be bad, depending on their experience of how the euro is working in the European country in which they live. It is a very pertinent question. Moreover, should someone who is a citizen of any one of the Commonwealth countries I have mentioned--India, Pakistan, Australia or New Zealand-- have the right to decide whether we give up the pound sterling and join the euro? I submit that they should not. The only people who should have the right to decide whether or not we join the euro are those British citizens who are currently resident in Britain, not the other groups that I mentioned.
	When and if we come to a euro referendum, we could only deal with such a situation if there were a clear delineation on the register specifying who is a British citizen, who is a Commonwealth citizen and who is not so much a citizen of the Republic of Ireland but a citizen of the Union. As far as I understand it--at least it was so this morning when I checked the position--the Republic of Ireland is a member of the European Union. In fact, I think it is also quite keen on the euro. I certainly do not think that citizens of the Republic of Ireland should have any say as to whether or not the UK joins the euro. After all, by the time we come to vote, the experiences of the Republic may be so dreadful as regards the euro that they will all vote against it. That would seem quite unfair. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats would not like that as a possibility, nor perhaps would the Government. As I said, I am puzzled as to what is the Government's current view on the euro.
	It seems sensible that we should have some signal on the register to enable us to see clearly who are British citizens. It is right that the citizens of this country should know why they are on the register: they should not be on the register simply as, "Commonwealth citizens". But, much more importantly, if we have a referendum on the euro, whether the Government like it or not it seems to me that we shall be discussing who should be allowed to vote, just as we did when we discussed the referendums in Scotland and Wales. When we reach that point I shall be advocating, as the Government may wish to, that British citizens currently resident in this country ought to be the only people who can vote. If that is the situation, we need to have a register that identifies that particular group perfectly clearly. Therefore, I suggest that we add to this part of the Bill the words "British citizen". The consequential amendments will then ensure that the register is made up in such a way that one can identify who are the British citizens for that potential euro referendum. I beg to move.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I would not in any way object to Commonwealth citizens having voting rights within the United Kingdom. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with me that there is a contradiction here when it comes to passport control, especially at Heathrow airport. There is a fast-track entry process for British and European Union passport holders, but Commonwealth citizens--even those with ties to this country, having been born within the UK--are herded through yet another channel, with all the consequent delays.

Lord Goodhart: In our view it is wholly appropriate that anyone who is on the register and entitled to vote and who can, therefore, vote in a parliamentary or local government election should be entitled to vote in a referendum in that part of the United Kingdom where he or she lives. Otherwise, the situation would be seriously discriminatory. I should add that the indication of Commonwealth voters on the register, however well intentioned, is something that could lead to an increased level of racism.

Lord Jopling: There is another issue which my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish did not quite cover. Those of us who have lived a political life in the years since the Second World War can remember occasions when, to put it mildly, the countries of the Commonwealth were not best pleased with the policies of the British Government. Indeed, like many noble Lords, I recall times when it was not an impossible thought that the countries of the Commonwealth might have voted to exclude Britain from the Commonwealth. It is to be hoped that those awkward days are behind us. I certainly hope so. However, if it was not impossible in the past, one is entitled to say that it is not impossible in the future.
	Perhaps I may put to the Minister the following possibility. With an election pending, if it were a decision of the nations of the Commonwealth to expel the United Kingdom, it seems to me on reading part of Clause 1 of the Bill that that would at a stroke make it impossible for British citizens to vote in a parliamentary election. I say that because if British citizens were no longer Commonwealth citizens, they would be automatically excluded. Surely it would be wise for us to insert these words into the legislation so that, if such an unthinkable and awful prospect were to arise, a whole lot of changes in the law would not need to be made to ensure that British people could vote in a British election. Can the Committee think of a more absurd situation? However, this seems to me to be an implication which we ought to think about. I hope that the noble Lord will take this point on board and will accept the amendment, or at least tell us that he will think carefully about it.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I think that this is something, with respect, that one has to think about. One has to distinguish on the one hand quite clearly between the allegiance of Commonwealth countries--which is sometimes in question--and Commonwealth citizenship. I begin to wonder whether in the context of the purpose of this Bill, Commonwealth citizenship is well conceived as a qualification to register.

Lord Naseby: My noble friend Lord Jopling is right to put his finger on this matter. When I was first in the other place a Motion was, I believe, tabled by Rajiv Gandhi to the effect that Britain should be excluded from the Commonwealth. Sadly, that gentleman--I say this sincerely--is no longer with us. However, it is conceivable that that situation could arise. Therefore, it seems to me that the Minister will need to take the point seriously. I support my noble friend's amendment.
	I refer to the sensitive subject of asylum seekers. I travel to Sri Lanka later this week and I am conscious of the number of Sri Lankans who seek asylum at this time. As I understand the Bill, we are moving towards a rolling register. Presumably someone who is in this country seeking asylum would qualify to go on the register almost from the date on which he or she arrived. I imagine that the Minister will be able to reassure us that that is not the case. However, that situation may not have been foreseen.

Lord Biffen: I support my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in the caution that has been expressed with regard to the nomenclature of the Commonwealth embracing the United Kingdom and all other countries within the Commonwealth. We are, after all, talking about a sensitive designation; namely, the electoral roll. It implies an underlying community and shared commitment which is rather strained. The reality of the Commonwealth is of a diverse collection of countries and of historical coincidences largely related to a phase of British imperialism which has now passed away. What is left behind is potentially dangerous if it is invested with a potency and a collective identity that it clearly does not possess. It may be a gesture of good will or of convenience to use the term "Commonwealth" as proposed in the legislation. However, we are perfectly entitled to utter a word of caution in that regard. I welcome the debate.

Lord Stallard: One simple question puzzles me; namely, why we are so keen to advocate representation from Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa when we flatly refuse to introduce reciprocal agreements for Commonwealth pensioners. Any British citizens who live in Commonwealth countries receive only the pension to which they were entitled when they left Britain. The sad fact is that many such pensioners are in dire straits as they have never received the increases in their pensions to which they are entitled. Therefore, I am puzzled as to why the British Government are so keen to spend thousands of pounds on producing leaflets to canvass them on election matters. Will the Minister comment on the possible introduction of a reciprocal agreement for the pensioners I have mentioned?

Lord Dholakia: I am fascinated by this discussion. If I recall correctly--I stand open to correction--the British Nationality Act 1948 conferred certain rights on Commonwealth citizens and British subjects. Those who came to this country after that date are entitled to participate fully in the government of this country. When Iain Macleod was colonial secretary, he confirmed that he intended to enable Commonwealth citizens to come to this country and to participate fully in the government of it. I hope that we shall not create two tiers of citizenship which discriminate between those who are here permanently and those who have come here to settle on a permanent basis. There is a residential qualification in this regard. No one flies from Ceylon, India, Pakistan or any other country and automatically goes on the register. They have to satisfy certain residential qualifications in this country to go on the register. Some of the arguments that have been advanced as regards the rights of people who come to this country are far fetched.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This has been a rather more fascinating debate than I thought it would be. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has spoken to his amendments with his customary vigour and entertainment value. I believe that we all enjoy that. However, the debate has strayed rather wider than I thought would be the case. Reference has been made to the euro referendum--I do not think it would be entirely appropriate for me to be drawn into that discussion this afternoon--and to reciprocal arrangements for Commonwealth pensioners. However, we are discussing the Representation of the People Bill. I shall attempt to address my remarks to that Bill.
	When I consider some of the amendments that we shall discuss later, and what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has said, I believe that he takes a rather narrower view of the Bill than he did at Second Reading, and than was taken by his colleagues in another place and, indeed, his party when considering the Bill and the proposals that have emerged from the all-party working party on which there was fairly unanimous agreement on most of those measures. As a consequence, we seem to have rather a large set of amendments before us this afternoon and I believe that the debate will range rather more widely than we had all anticipated.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I can help him in this regard. Parliamentary scrutiny means scrutiny. There may be many amendments on the Marshalled List, but many of them are designed to tease out exactly what the Government mean by a measure. The noble Lord will have to get used to that if he is to continue to be a Minister and to present Home Office legislation.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reminder. I have no problems with scrutiny; the Government have no problems with scrutiny. However, I am concerned that some of the matters we are likely to discuss today go rather wider than that point.
	The provisions in Clause 1 of the Bill, setting out who is entitled to vote in parliamentary and local government elections, simply replicate the existing rules. However, a necessary change is being made to reflect the fact that, with the introduction of rolling electoral registration, there will no longer be a single annual qualifying date. Among those entitled to vote in both parliamentary and local elections are Commonwealth citizens. Let us be quite clear that that includes British citizens. Indeed, given our key role in the Commonwealth, I do not believe that there could be any doubt on that point.
	Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 7, 23, 63, 77, 121 and 122 seek to add the words "British citizen" before all references to Commonwealth citizens. That would imply that British citizens were not citizens of the Commonwealth. Apart from casting doubt on any other enactment, the use of the term "Commonwealth citizen" would also, I suggest, send a negative and unwelcome message to our Commonwealth partners. The term "Commonwealth citizen" has served us well for many years. Indeed, it has found its way into legislation brought before Parliament by both of the major parties in government. I urge the noble Lord to consider that there is no reason to depart from that term today.
	Finally, Amendment No. 38 would require all non-British citizens to be identified on the electoral register with a special mark. I simply ask: why? Given that these people have the right to vote, they should be treated in the same way as everyone else. A special mark on the register would serve no purpose except to single them out. Worse, I suspect, certain far Right groups may find considerable use for lists which specifically identify non-British citizens. Do we really want to introduce that? The noble Lord opposite should think long and hard before he presses that particular point.
	The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, raised questions about the countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements. As he quite rightly acknowledged, I have written to him extensively on that matter. As I set out in some of the correspondence, most of them do not--

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble Lord. With the utmost respect, the Minister is not addressing his mind to the question. He is saying "as they have the right to vote" but, for the reasons that have been given, it is very much in question whether they should have the right to vote. The Minister referred to the existing rule; is not our function to examine the existing rule? He appears to assume that we have to accept that "what is, shall be".

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention.
	We take the view that Commonwealth citizens should have that right. Historically, they have always had that right; it has been established before in legislation. I am grateful that noble Lords opposite wish to spell out a difference on this issue. We have reciprocal arrangements with most Commonwealth countries and they work in a similar way. All the countries listed in the correspondence allow voting on much the same basis as we allow Commonwealth citizens to vote.
	Although noble Lords opposite may take a different view, we believe that it is right that Commonwealth citizens should exercise the right to vote in the UK. I trust that, in the light of our discussions this afternoon--

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the noble Lord finishes, perhaps he can tell the Committee about those countries I mentioned which are not on the list--Canada, Australia, Pakistan and India--which are, dare I say it, the major players in the Commonwealth. Do we have no reciprocal arrangements at all with them?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I have set out in the correspondence, as far as I understand it, there are no reciprocal arrangements with the countries to which the noble Lord referred. But there is a fairly extensive list of countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements. I am happy with that; the Government are happy with that; and the party opposite was happy with those arrangements when it was in government: it did not raise any questions about those reciprocal arrangements. I trust that the noble Lord will now see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Jopling: I am sorry, but, as far as concerns my earlier comments, the Minister's reply is 100 per cent inadequate. I raised a serious point and the Minister gave my comments about as much attention as he did at Second Reading. I insist that he responds to the point I made. If he did not understand it, I shall try to explain it a little more clearly and perhaps a little more slowly.
	Let us assume that a meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government was to be held during the autumn--such meetings often occur during the autumn--and that that meeting was to take place after Parliament had been prorogued for a general election. I and other noble Lords will know that the period of prorogation for a general election can often be for up to a month. If, during that month period--when Parliament was not in existence--a somewhat unhappy situation arose whereby the Commonwealth Heads of Government, in their wisdom, decided to exclude the United Kingdom from the Commonwealth, that would mean, as I understand it, that, at a stroke, British citizens would cease to be Commonwealth citizens because Britain was no longer a member of the Commonwealth. That would mean, as I understand it, that the law could not be changed to take account of that new situation because Parliament was not sitting and there would be no Parliament. Perhaps I may complete my argument as I am into the flow of it. As I understand it, that would mean that the only people who would be entitled to vote at a general election would be either non-British Commonwealth citizens or citizens of the Irish Republic.
	Can the Committee imagine a more absurd situation than a British general election where the only people able to vote are citizens of the Irish Republic or citizens of all the other countries in the Commonwealth except the United Kingdom? I am happy to give way now.

Lord Borrie: I did not want to interrupt after the noble Lord indicated that he did not wish me to. It seems to me that his premise is incorrect. British law and the British courts would follow the British Nationality Act 1948, whereby Commonwealth citizens are so defined as to include all British subjects and all citizens of the United Kingdom. Therefore, even if the Commonwealth Heads of Government did do what the noble Lord suggested, all citizens of the United Kingdom would be entitled to vote under United Kingdom law at the general election posited by the noble Lord.

Lord Jopling: I am intrigued to hear that. It is a somewhat legalistic situation, of which I was not immediately aware because I am not a great expert on British nationality laws. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. However, I should like to hear it from the Minister, with the authority of a government stamp behind it. It is a serious problem. Although there may be a legal explanation, if the scenario I have mentioned were to occur, there would be the greatest possible consternation in the middle of a general election campaign among the British media and among the average British voters who, like myself, are not experts in nationality laws.
	The Minister must apply himself to what is, in my view, a serious question--a question which he totally ignored in his reply.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I entirely support the words of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in expressing some surprise at the Minister's surprise. We are at Committee stage and, if I may say so, the noble Lord on the Front Bench is not the first to find these procedures something of an ordeal. I know that this is the first time that he has gone through these kinds of exchanges. On the whole, your Lordships' House is an extremely kindly place, given to mercy and pity on all occasions, but if the Minister cannot do better than his opening defence against these amendments, he will be in some difficulty.
	When he rose to reply, the Minister said that the debate had been fascinating and had gone much wider than he expected. I cannot understand why he did not anticipate that or, if he did not personally anticipate it, why his advisers did not anticipate it. I hope that when he gets back to his private office he will address some stern words to his advisers and tell them that he found himself in a very embarrassing position in your Lordships' Committee and that in future he requires better advice and better briefs than he has had today. I am assuming that the words spoken by the Minister came from his brief--in which case he suffers from the appalling misfortune of extremely bad advice.
	I should like to make another small point. Just because the matter has been accepted since the year dot, it does not mean to say that when a Bill is being read Members of the Committee may not suddenly be seized with a desire to change something. My noble friend Lord Mackay has tabled some simple, easily intelligible amendments, as one would expect. To quarrel with them, or even to appear to quarrel with them on the basis that they attempt to achieve something new and strange which the Minister's advisers did not expect, is rather meagre.
	The Minister is fortunate in having the benefit of the advice of the Government Chief Whip so easily available. We all have profound respect for the Government Chief Whip and we have absolutely no reason to doubt the quality of his advice. The only matter on which I can congratulate the Minister this afternoon is his near proximity to the Government Chief Whip. If he would like to have a quiet word with him now--oh, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, looked as if he were going to depart. That would be an act of gross and gratuitous cruelty to his noble friend in his hour of need.

Lord Carter: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I was leaving because of the noble Lord's speech.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation. Perhaps he will respond to my invitation and give his noble friend advice about the procedures we go through during Committee stage and what Ministers really must accept from Oppositions. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me and not believe that I am being at all rude to him when I say that this Opposition have so far been distinguished by their kindliness and patience in a way that the previous opposition were not. If the position had been reversed and a Minister had confronted the Committee with the kind of reply that we have had so far to the amendments, there would have been an uproar, not only from the Front Bench but from the gathered legions behind them. Today, I can say only that my noble friend has behaved with his characteristic civility and politeness, as have all other speakers from this side of the Committee.
	If proceedings continue in that way, the almost legendary patience and tolerance of this side of the Committee will be tried almost to breaking point. I had not previously believed that there was a breaking point.

Lord Biffen: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may say in a spirit of relaxed charity that one point has risen in the debate on which I should be grateful for elaboration; that is, the talk of Commonwealth membership being the subject of entitlement to vote and the discussion of reciprocity.
	New Section 1(1)(c) states that eligibility is conferred upon:
	"either a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland".
	Does "a Commonwealth citizen" refer unconditionally to Commonwealth citizens, or does it result from reciprocity between this country and some Commonwealth countries?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I got off on the wrong foot earlier on the matter. I shall take the admonishments of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, to heart. I am grateful to him for his advice as to how Ministers should conduct themselves at the Dispatch Box. No doubt I shall learn my lessons quickly and, if I do not, he will come back and remind me for not doing so. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for his kind words of support. These things always come in spades.
	I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for being less than full in my response. I have had some researches undertaken since I sat down. My understanding is that, when, for instance, Nigeria and Fiji were suspended from the Commonwealth, their citizens did not lose their rights to vote as Commonwealth citizens. My understanding of the law in relation to the term "Commonwealth" is as my noble friend Lord Borrie ably explained in his intervention. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that the situation would be fairly absurd if his interpretation were correct. I am grateful to him for his intervention. It has focused our minds neatly on the range of issues that this set of amendments seeks to address. I am grateful to Members of the Committee for the debate. It has been valuable for that reason, if not much more.
	However, I have some concern about the amendments. We shall resist them. They would not serve much good purpose, but they would suggest a narrowness on our part. Commonwealth citizens have historically had the right to vote here. Members opposite clearly take a different view, but we hold to that view since the situation has been thus since the post-war settlement. I therefore suggest that it would be right and proper for the amendment to be withdrawn.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have certainly had an interesting little debate. I can remember at the beginning of this Parliament arguing against the concept of referendums. I was told by Ministers that I was being old fashioned and that I had to enter the new world--I gather that "new" is the most commonly used word in Mr Blair's speeches--that referendums were part of the new world; and that I had to accept them. Then came Scottish devolution, in which we were to tear up a constitutional arrangement that had been in existence since 1707. But that was not good enough; it had to be questioned and abandoned. I was told I had to get used to the new world. When the Government turned to your Lordships' House, it had to be changed to as near as they could possibly make it to a "quango House".
	When we said that we believed that was perhaps not quite the right way to go about it, we were told that we had to get into the new world. Today the Minister tells us that we must accept what has always been the case in the past. We must not even ask why. We must not say that it is time to change, or anything similar. I must say to the Minister that the convincing arguments for change advanced by his noble friends on previous occasions--largely by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn--were rather more compelling than his defence of the status quo.
	His defence was made worse by the fact that he failed totally to address the point I made about a possible euro referendum. That is not theory. The Minister may not have been here in the summer of 1997, but we spent a long time then discussing the question of the legitimate register to use on referendum votes. The Government decided on that occasion that overseas electors should not be allowed to vote. Some of us believed that that was wrong, but that was the Government's position. The Government would not have been able to take that position if those people had not been so marked on the register. Indeed, if Members of your Lordships' House had not been so marked on the register, Members such as myself who live in Scotland might not have been able to vote. It was because the register had marks on it regarding people who were not allowed to vote in parliamentary elections, including overseas voters, that the Government were able to limit the franchise for the referendum.
	The Minister has failed miserably to explain why I should not be concerned about a referendum on the euro and the possibility that we may want to limit the franchise. We may want to decide that European citizens who have a vote here at local elections should certainly not be allowed to decide whether this country joins the euro. It is an arguable case--I put it no higher than that--that citizens of Commonwealth countries such as Australia or Canada should not be allowed to decide whether we join the euro. They may be absolutely opposed to us joining the euro. When the day comes, the Government may in fact want to knock them out of the register--out of voting--in order to try to ensure they achieve the result they want. It was not good enough for the Minister simply to dismiss a major part of my argument about wanting to make sure that British citizens were included clearly on the register by saying that he did not want to become involved in discussing the euro.
	I should have thought that the euro is the most important issue currently before the British people and will be so for some years to come. Whether one is for it or against it, it will be the major issue of the first decade of the 21st century. Who decides will be an important issue for us to address on the day the Government come forward with their referendum Bill on the euro.
	We may come back to residential qualifications later. Perhaps I may give the Minister some advance warning. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, says that residential qualifications are necessary. We should like to know what those residential qualifications are. For the moment I shall seek to withdraw the amendment, but I cannot say that I am satisfied with the replies I have had from the Government on the substantive issue of referendums. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 2, line 6, leave out (", a citizen of the Republic of Ireland").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment seeks to delete the words,
	"a citizen of the Republic of Ireland".
	Before the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, gets on to his soap box, this is not me deciding to have a tilt at the Irish. I move the amendment simply because I want to know why the words are any longer necessary. With regard to voting in local government elections, new Section 2(1)(c) refers to,
	"a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union".
	The Republic of Ireland is a member of the European Union. Therefore, I should have thought that, just as citizens of Italy, France or Germany resident in this country are entitled to go on to the register as local government electors, so too are citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Why do we need the words "a citizen of the Republic of Ireland" there and further on? Surely, those words are unnecessary.
	If the Minister says, "Oh no, we must not change anything", I ask him this question. Can he tell me who might be likely to qualify as "a citizen of the Republic of Ireland" but not as "a relevant citizen of the Union"? I beg to move.

Lord Boston of Faversham: I must point out to the Committee that, as Amendment No. 8 is being spoken to with this amendment, there is a misprint in Amendment No. 8 as it appears on the Marshalled List. The word "the" has been missed out. It should read,
	"a citizen of the Republic of Ireland".

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I must confess to being somewhat puzzled by Amendments Nos. 3 and 8. As I understand the position, their effect would be to deny citizens of the Republic of Ireland the right to vote in our local government elections.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry, but the Minister really must listen to my argument. I asked him this question. Can he name a citizen of the Republic of Ireland who is not a relevant citizen of the Union and therefore entitled to vote as a relevant citizen of the Union? That is what I asked.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. The term "relevant citizen of the Union" may help us. That is defined in Section 202 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and refers to the citizens of all EU member states apart from Britain and Ireland. The right of nationals of other EU member states to vote in the local elections of the country where they reside is enshrined in the Treaty of Maastricht, so this amendment would put us in breach of our treaty obligations. Just as important, there are good historical reasons for the voting rights that Irish citizens enjoy, which I stress are fully reciprocated. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Swinfen: Before the Minister sits down, he says that the voting rights of citizens of the Republic of Ireland are fully reciprocated. I was not aware that subjects of Her Majesty from the United Kingdom had voting rights of any kind in the Republic of Ireland.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If, by the deletion of these words, citizens of the Republic of Ireland would be denied the reciprocity which they have enjoyed over the years, I shall withdraw the amendment. But I am still puzzled to know why "relevant citizen of the Union" does not cover a citizen of the Irish Republic. After all, the Irish Republic is a member of the European Union. It is almost as daft as the situation of students from England who go to Scottish universities. This will give the Minister time to find a reply that may satisfy the Committee. Those students have to pay £4,000 when citizens of every other European Union country will be able to defer payment. They will have to pay £2,000 once they graduate. The answer from Mr Brian Wilson to that question was that England as a state is not a member of the European Union. For this legislation, perhaps the Republic of Ireland is not a member of the European Union. However, the Minister may have the answer by this time.

Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him this question. Whereas Irish citizens now have the right to vote in parliamentary elections, the effect of removing the specific reference to Irish citizens would be that they would only have the same right as other European citizens; namely, to vote in local and European elections.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord is trying, as do all noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, to help the Government. If the noble Lord looks at where we are in the Bill he will see that new Section 2(1) begins:
	"A person is entitled to vote as an elector at a local government election in any electoral area if on the date of the poll he ... is a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union".
	We are talking about local government registers, not parliamentary ones.

Lord Goodhart: Yes, but the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be that the reference to European Union voters would mean two different things in two different parts of the Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is actually the case. That is why at the outset I made the point that if we were to pursue the line taken in the amendment, we could end up denying citizens of the Republic of Ireland the right to vote in local government elections.
	The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked about reciprocation with Ireland. That is the case. We have reciprocal rights to vote in Ireland's general elections and local elections. That has been the case for a long time. To pursue the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, could have a most confusing effect. On that ground I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I am just stupid but I am still totally puzzled by that answer. With regard to voting in parliamentary elections, new Section 1(1)(c) states,
	"is either a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland".
	They have special rights. Other citizens of other European Union countries do not have the right to vote in our parliamentary elections. That is fine and simple. I think that I have it right at that point. We then come to the next part, which is about local government elections. Under that part, Commonwealth citizens are allowed to vote but also--because, as the noble Lord said, of Maastricht--in addition to Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Republic of Ireland, relevant citizens of the Union are allowed to vote. I do not understand why the Bill needs to mention the citizens of the Republic of Ireland and the relevant citizens of the Union. Unless something has happened in the past hour, Ireland is a member of the European Union.
	The noble Lord has failed to explain--perhaps I have misunderstood him--how a citizen of the Irish Republic would not qualify for a local government vote here if he lived here as "a relevant citizen of the Union". If I can have that explanation, I shall be quite happy. If I do not have that explanation, what I might call "the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, mood" will come over me with regard to having unnecessary words in the legislation, words which make me wonder why we have them. It is a simple question. Perhaps I may have a simple answer at the third time of asking.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: "A relevant citizen of the Union" is defined, as I said, as a citizen of one the 13 EU countries apart from Ireland, which is why it is necessary to refer specifically to Irish citizens. That is the explanation.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am obliged to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. Is it the same argument-- because it is, it has to remain? No reason is given. Will the noble Lord make it plain why the reference has to remain?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is a question of definition; namely, citizens of the 13 EU states. That is the working definition.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think the Minister is telling me that the Maastricht Treaty makes the Republic of Ireland different from the other EU member states. I shall take advice on whether that is the case. It seems an odd situation to have got ourselves into at the time, but perhaps there was some good reason for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although, frankly, once I have checked the Maastricht Treaty I may decide to return to the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Jopling: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 2, line 27, leave out ("Northern Ireland") and insert ("the United Kingdom").

Lord Jopling: I hope that in this debate we shall be able to avoid the unhappy discomfort through which the Minister appears to be going. I hope that these amendments will give him the opportunity to be helpful to the Committee and to accept them.
	Before going into detail, perhaps I may repeat the comments I made at Second Reading. I said that we must always remember, when changing the law relating to electoral procedures in order to encourage more people to vote--which I think everyone wants--that it is essential that we do so without significantly opening the door to electoral abuse in one form or another.
	New Section 4(2) adds to the Bill a provision dealing with potential abuse in Northern Ireland. The subsection states that people cannot be placed on the register in Northern Ireland until they have been resident for the whole of the three-month period prior to the relevant date. As I understand it, the provision is included to avoid a situation in which people could pop over the border from the Irish Republic in considerable numbers and attempt to register as voters in Northern Ireland and declare either a temporary address or local connection under the guise of being homeless.
	I hope that I have got the right end of the stick and that this is the main reason why the Bill includes special rules for Northern Ireland. I hope that, in responding, the noble Lord will tell us why the special provision has been included. Following the remarks of my noble friend Lord Peyton, I imagine that the Minister's brief will contain a full explanation.
	Given that background, and assuming that I can start from that point, my amendments are intended to extend the special provision of three months' residence to the whole of the United Kingdom. Surely there is merit in that. It is right to attempt to treat the whole United Kingdom as one. My amendment seeks to apply the provision to new registrations within the United Kingdom. It applies only to people who have never previously been on the electoral register.
	There are a good many reasons for tabling the amendments. First, while providing for those who tend to wander from one place to another, possibly sleeping rough or occupying squatter properties, the extension of the register to homeless people clearly gives rise to potential opportunities for abuse, and electoral abuse in particular. The second reason is that, in recent times, as the Government know only too well, there has been a huge increase in those coming to this country seeking political asylum. Therefore, the possibility of potential abuse arises.
	I began by saying that I hoped the Minister would be able to accept these amendments. Since the Bill was printed and, indeed, since it came to this House from another place, two events have occurred which should make the noble Lord considerably keener to see my amendments incorporated. The first is the experience of the past few days; namely, the emergence of hijacking as a means of seeking political asylum. We must be aware, having followed the events of the past week, that there is a real danger of the United Kingdom becoming a target for considerable numbers of asylum seekers--economic and political refugees coming to this country, using the newly found device of hijacking aircraft as a means of doing so. My amendment attempts to go some way to delay those entering the United Kingdom illegally in that way from obtaining the right to vote without at least a three-month pause.
	I make this point following the Minister's attack last week in response to my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. I have still heard no explanation from the Minister or any justification for the attack on my noble friend, saying that his points were fictitious. I hope that the Minister today will give a full explanation. It seemed to a good many Members of this place that my noble friend had used official figures. If he did not, we ought to be told. I hope that the Minister has considered his remarks and that he has become a good deal more conscious of the real trouble that we are in in this country given the dramatic rise in the numbers of asylum seekers already here waiting to have their applications considered.
	Now that the Minister has had time better to understand the problem, I would have thought that the Government would welcome the extension of the provisions relating to Northern Ireland to the whole of the United Kingdom and insist that somebody cannot register unless he has been resident in the United Kingdom during the whole period of three months ending on the relevant date, provided only that it is a new registration within the United Kingdom. I beg to move.

Lord Naseby: I support my noble friend. I ask the Minister to reflect on what happened at Great Yarmouth during the Millennium. As one who lives in the eastern part of the country, to the best of my knowledge well over 1,000 New Age travellers--or whatever terminology is used to describe them--remained in Great Yarmouth for about two and a half weeks, not just a few days. One may have a situation--it is not entirely hypothetical--in which a by-election is pending in a marginal seat and, for one reason or another, the government of the day decide to delay it. Over the years, Great Yarmouth has been a marginal seat. The situation may arise in which a flood of homeless people decide to stay, register and vote. That seems to me to be a weakness. In their wisdom the Government have, rightly, decided that for a part of the United Kingdom a period of three months should apply. My noble friend makes a very powerful case that the arrangement should be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Lord Biffen: I too support the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Jopling. It is fascinating that in this particular instance legislation, which on the whole is designed to widen access to voting, imposes a restriction. One is entitled to ask what lies behind the bald print of this part of Clause 1. What is it about the situation in Northern Ireland which persuades the Minister to make this provision? Where do the dangers arise, and to what extent are they organised or spontaneous? One can elaborate this matter to a considerable extent to realise that the whole approach of more open electoral registration is one which, although in many ways commendable, carries dangers. These amendments give the Committee an opportunity to examine the dangers and, above all, an idea of what may develop in other circumstances over a longer period throughout the United Kingdom, as my noble friend suggests.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As expected, in putting his points to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Jopling made his case clearly. I hope that we can look forward to a reasonable reply. My noble friend Lord Biffen raises the interesting question: if for Northern Ireland, why not for the United Kingdom? I can hazard a guess why it has been done for Northern Ireland. I suggest to the Minister that, given increased mobility, the problems in Northern Ireland which brought about the need for the three-month period may also migrate to the United Kingdom.
	One of the problems of my noble friend's amendment is that, for example, UK citizens who returned to this country from abroad, perhaps having worked in the European Commission or for British companies around the world, would have to wait three months before they could vote. If they had registered as overseas voters there would not be a gap between registration and the right to vote; if not, they would have to wait for three months. We must bear in mind that point when considering my noble friend's amendment. The same is true for somebody from Northern Ireland who had gone abroad to work. Many companies in Northern Ireland send people abroad to work. Currently, if they go home to Northern Ireland they will have to wait three months before they can register, which seems to be rather unfair to them. I look forward to the Minister's reply to my noble friend's points.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Committee must consider these amendments in the context of the whole Bill. Although the Bill is a long one, a good part of it makes no change to existing law, and the matters on which these amendments touch are a case in point. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, made an interesting case in relation to asylum seekers. We shall turn to that matter in later amendments. I hope that he will take some comfort from what I say later when the Committee debates the amendments which are relevant to that issue. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, spoke about the possibility of migrating electors. We shall turn to that matter in later amendments. The noble Lord may find some satisfaction in what I say later when the Committee deals with those amendments.
	As the law currently stands, those who wish to register as electors in Northern Ireland are required to have been resident there for a minimum of three months. There is no corresponding requirement for the rest of the UK, and the Bill makes no change in that regard. I believe most Members of the Committee accept that there are good reasons for the application of special conditions to Northern Ireland, which are widely supported by the political parties in that part of the UK.
	The Home Office has carried out some research and detected no evidence that abuse of the kind that the extra conditions are designed to prevent takes place on the mainland. As far as I am aware, there is no real clamour among mainland political parties for similar extra conditions to be imposed there. Certainly, the Working Party on Electoral Procedures made no such recommendation when it looked at these matters. The working party had time to consider these issues at length and to make new proposals if it wished.
	If these amendments were accepted, people who registered for the first time, or who changed their registration, would face an additional hurdle in trying to vote. With the best will in the world, sometimes it is difficult enough for people to understand the registration process and become involved. Given that we want to encourage more people to register and vote--after all, that is what the legislation is about--the amendments place another hurdle in their way, and we believe that that would be unwise. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, made the point for me when he spoke about those who returned from abroad. Students and those returning after working abroad would find it particularly difficult to register. For those very good reasons, I do not believe that these amendments should be accepted. I see no reason why we should seek to place additional obstacles in front of people who return from working abroad having performed good service there.
	I also do not believe that, as a matter of principle, we should treat those who register by means of a declaration of local connection any worse than those who register in the normal way. I see no justification for Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 35. There is already a perfectly satisfactory mechanism whereby people who believe that a name should not be included on the electoral register can appeal against it. That seems to me to be a much better avenue than to put in place unnecessary obstacles that make it harder for people in Britain to register. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Lord Jopling: One should put the gap between registration and coming on to the register in its proper context. The amendments which I have tabled mean that people from overseas who had not previously been registered would have to wait three months to get on to the register. However, at the moment people still have to wait three months, so there is no change. As my noble friend Lord Mackay said, it is open to individuals who have been registered previously in the United Kingdom to register when they are abroad. A rule of this kind would encourage them to register as overseas voters.
	I am not convinced by the arguments. I wish to consider the issue and perhaps return to it on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 2, line 44, at end insert--
	("(ii) compliance with any prescribed requirements; and").

Lord Bach: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move government Amendment No. 9 and speak to Amendments Nos. 53, 59, 67, 80, 128 and 130. I make clear that the Government believe that none of these amendments makes any substantive change to the Bill. They are--although I hesitate to use the word, I do so--"technical" in nature.
	Amendment No. 9 makes it clear that in order to be registered a person needs to comply with the appropriate regulations. Amendments Nos. 53 and 59 are drafting amendments which ensure that decisions on the alteration of registers are taken in accordance with regulations.
	Amendments Nos. 67 and 80 are technical. They remove the requirement that regulations should cover the time at which a register is published since that is already dealt with in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 128 is a drafting amendment to include a definition of local government area. Amendment No. 130 is also a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These are fairly technical amendments which change some of the words. I am intrigued to know the difference between a registration officer determining something and a registration officer becoming satisfied about it. I wonder why the change is made in legislation which has already passed through the other place requiring the registration officer simply to be satisfied. I do not know whether the Minister can help me or whether I shall have to go to the dictionary.

Lord Bach: We think that it is a better choice of word. I commend the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 3, line 2, at end insert--
	("( ) The date on which any application made for registration shall be entered against his name in the register; and until the date given in the entry he shall not by virtue of that entry be treated as an elector for any purposes other than those of an election the date of the poll for which is the date so given or date thereafter.").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We are moving to a new concept of electoral register: a rolling register. There will be additions to the register by way of an update. I imagine that some kind of document will be produced every month for 10 months--it may be nine months--adding to and deleting names from the electoral register. As at present, a wholesale review of the register will be made in the autumn. However, it will not be published at the beginning of the next year, as at present, but on 1st December. The register will become a rolling register. At present a correction register is published in December in which those names which have been added to or deleted from the register are indicated. People can check the register to see whether their names have been added. Political parties can check, as they do, to see which names have been taken off and which added. They can ensure that the names of their supporters--I was going to say "electors" but in reality I do not believe that the parties check all the electors but only the names of their supporters--are on the electoral register. That may sound awful to the Government but I believe it to be the reality. If anyone tells me that the Labour Party does not do the same, I shall not believe him.
	With rolling addendums a different situation will apply. It will be clear month by month which names have been added to or taken off the register. But I understand that the changes made to the register published in the autumn will not be marked. Of course, the names taken off the register cannot be marked; but those added to the register will not be marked either. In the past, people have been able to check new additions to the register to ensure that they are correct and legitimate. The position will be more difficult with rolling registers. It will not be so easy to challenge entries and that is part and parcel of getting the register correct. If one says to the register officer, "Our information is that Mr and Mrs Bloggs do not live at that address. You have that wrong", he can do something about it.
	On the major review of the register published on 1st December, there should be an indication as to when a person comes on to the register. We do so already with the dates of birth of 18 year-olds. No one seems to have a problem with that. One's date of birth is known. Eighteen year-olds are like Members of this House: they can never hide their age. I suspect that 18 year-olds are prouder to be their age than some of us are to be our age. Some of us may prefer to draw a veil over our age until, I gather from my mother, one reaches a great old age when one is happy to boast about it.
	There is no problem about putting dates of birth alongside names on the register. There would seem to be no problem about entering a mark or a date beside new entrants so that those who check the register can concentrate on the new entrants without having to check the entire register for additions and deletions. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Initially I was somewhat baffled by the amendment. However, having heard the noble Lord's argument, I am a little wiser.
	If I explain how the new electoral registration scheme will work, perhaps the noble Lord will feel satisfied with what we seek to do. There will still be an annual canvass conducted in the autumn but, in addition, people will be able to apply to be added to the electoral register throughout the year. This will, of course, be of particular benefit to those who move during the course of a year. That is the principle underlying a rolling register.
	Once an electoral registration officer receives an application for registration he will need to consider it and decide whether it meets the prescribed requirements. If it does, he will include the name of the person concerned in the monthly list which he publishes on the 1st of every month (other than the months when the annual canvass is taking place) giving details of the additions to and deletions from his register. At the same time he will add the name of the person concerned to the register.
	So the position is quite clear. There will be a monthly list. Names added and deleted will be published in that monthly list. On that basis, it should be clear to everyone how the register is working and how it will apply. Therefore I cannot envisage that the mischief the noble Lord hoped to deal with by the amendment will arise. I should have thought that the publication of the monthly list with additions and deletions would satisfy most of those concerned with and interested in the new register. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Naseby: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him to clarify one point. At the moment the ANC list appears, if I am correct, at the February date after the October registration. I understand that there will be, in effect, a monthly ANC list. However, is there still to be a summary at the end of the year? Otherwise, I suspect that unless everybody is fully computerised, which a number of smaller, local charities will not be, they will have to go through the whole 12 months and work off the end-year register, whereas at the moment all they have to do is take the summary form in either October or February. I cannot remember when the summary is issued.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not quite sure that I can help the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, this afternoon on that point. My understanding is that the draft register is currently produced in December and the full register is produced in February. What we will have in December, of course, is a full register with the new system, and then additions and deletions thereto. Addressing the point that the noble Lord has raised, my belief is that the new arrangements will probably be more helpful than the current ones to those who have a concerted interest in the register, because the period to which it applies is continuous, rolling and updated, so that all the information will be there at some point during the course of the 12 months.

Lord Naseby: The question that I am asking is whether there will at any point in the year be a summary of all changes in the register, as there now is, or whether the public have to work from 12 individual returns.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My understanding is that there will not be a summary. They will have to work from the published register in December and then the updated supplementaries to it. That should provide almost up-to-the-minute accuracy. As I have said, I believe that that will be more helpful than the current arrangements.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to my noble friend of intervening. He has spared me the effort of looking in the Bill for something else that I shall not be able to find. The Minister will no doubt be able to help me. My understanding is that a list will be published on the 1st of each month, clearly with the exception of 1st December, because that is the day on which a full list will be published. However, am I not right in thinking that that will apply also to 1st November? My recollection was that only 10 of those lists would go out. I am not sure either about 1st October or 1st January. I had understood that no addendum would be issued on 1st January and 1st November.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My understanding is that apart from the month when the annual canvass takes place and the publication of the register in its December form, there will be monthly updates and supplements to the register.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not disputing the logic of it. I am simply trying to work out which months we are talking about. The canvass is in October, but my recollection is that there is not one on 1st November, nor would I expect there to be, quite frankly, because at that stage the main register is being redone. What I cannot remember is whether it is simply 1st November, with the publication of the full register on 1st December, or whether it is 1st October and 1st January, one or other, as well. I can see the logic of 1st October.
	However, that is not quite the point that I want to make. The point is that during the months of January, February, March, April, May, June, when we know that there will be a monthly published list of additions and subtractions, it will be easy for people to see who has been put on and who has been taken off. The problem will occur in October and November, when in the 1st December register it will not be easy at all, because there will be no indication. If it is right that there should be a clear indication for nine or 10 months of the year, it would seem sensible that there should be some indication on the 1st December register of who has been added. It is not a state secret. We shall know who has been added in the rolling register as the months of January, February, March and April proceed. Therefore, it would be convenient on 1st December. If the Minister can help my memory with regard to the months when the rolling additions will be published, I will then withdraw the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: There certainly will not be a monthly update in October, and I can advise the noble Lord that neither will there be one in November. If it will help, I shall take on board the point made by the noble Lord in his argument and give it further thought between now and Report stage. I should not like to be held to that, but I shall try to be as helpful as possible.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister and I am pleased to hear his assurance that he will look at this. He takes the point, as I am sure all your Lordships do, about new entrants on to the register. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Disfranchisement of offenders detained in mental hospitals]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 4, line 12, leave out ("or 71").

Lord Bach: In moving this amendment, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 12 and 20. These are technical amendments, I hope short ones, to clarify to which categories of persons under Sections 70 and 71 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 the new Sections 3A (Clause 2) and 7A (Clause 5) of this Bill apply.
	Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 ensure that under the new Section 3A (Clause 2) a disfranchisement of offenders detained in hospitals in Scotland under Section 71 of the 1984 Act applies to persons serving a prison sentence who have been removed to hospital on mental health grounds.
	Amendment No. 20 ensures that the provisions in the new Section 7A about residence of persons remanded in custody apply to those persons awaiting trial who have been transferred from prison to hospital under Section 70 of the 1984 Act and to those persons who are transferred under Section 71 of the 1984 Act from prison, where they are detained under the Immigration Act 1971, to a hospital on mental health grounds. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 4, line 13, after ("1984") insert ("or section 71 of that Act (being a person to whom that section applies by virtue of subsection (2)(a) of that section)").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Jopling: May I be allowed one query on Clause 2? I cannot understand the wording on page 4, lines 12 and 13, which, as far as I can understand it, appears to go into the Welsh language. I wonder whether the Minister can help me with this. I shall not attempt to put it in the Welsh language. It refers to the "Mental y yn Health (Scotland) Act 1984". Could we have an explanation of what this is about?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord has made a perfectly respectable joke! It is undoubtedly a typographical error. I do not believe that I have ever known "Mental y yn Health". We apologise for this and we will make sure that it is accurate in the next print.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Residence for purposes of registration: general]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 5, line 7, after ("purpose") insert (", lawfulness").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak to a number of related amendments. They are all concerned with the residence for purposes of registration. Members of the Committee will notice that every time that is referred to in the Bill, I have insisted that the lawfulness of the registration be marked as the test. My amendments are designed to ensure that only a lawful residence is a qualification for the purposes of registration. That would greatly help to reduce the risk of fraudulent registration, a problem experienced more in urban areas.
	We have no problem with the principle that homeless people should be able to register. Special provision has been made and I shall deal with that later. However, understandably, we want to be sure that that special provision is tight because we want to ensure that there is no abuse of the right.
	That change in the law has highlighted the point in Clause 3 to which I want to draw the Committee's attention. What is the position as regards squatters? If someone is squatting at an address, they are not legally supposed to be there. Therefore, they are doing something illegal at that address. Are they then classed as homeless or are they recognised as squatters? Do they come under the residence test or under the later clause relating to homelessness? We must get the position clear. It seems to some of us that if people are staying at an address illegally, they should not be able to register at that address as electors. If we allowed them to do so, we should be encouraging a contravention of the law.
	I hope that we shall see much less of homelessness, but it is interesting that after two-and-a-half years of rhetoric all we have seen is an increase. It is not obvious to me, as I go about the streets of London or Glasgow, that there has been any great reduction in homelessness. Therefore, I am not surprised that the Government have decided to give such people a vote. I thought that they were going to remove homeless people from our streets, but trying to give them a vote suggests that they reckon they will fail in meeting that commitment.
	Giving homeless people a vote is one thing, but giving people who are squatting illegally a vote on a residency qualification is entirely different. Perhaps the Minister will explain the present position. Do people in a squat have the right to be registered at that address to vote? If so, should that right continue? If they do not, should they be given that right? My amendments would ensure that squatters who are illegally resident in a house would not be able to use that residence as the basis on which they could vote. It is a simple and straightforward issue. I beg to move.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I have a problem with the way in which the amendment is framed. I understand that no one wants fraudulent registration, but many squatters have been on the register for many years. In a recent case in Lambeth, it took the High Court many years to determine whether the person was legally at an address.
	I am particularly worried because the amendment proposes that a person who it is alleged is illegally in the premises should be unable to register or have his or her registration removed. I am not a lawyer and know little about the law, but I believe that squatting is a civil offence and I am worried that we are moving into forbidden realms.
	Furthermore, I recall that, in relation to a number of people who were squatting at Greenham Common, the courts decided that they were legally entitled to register at that squat. Therefore, that is another complication which needs examining before we go down this road.
	I am worried about the proposal that people who might be legally registered would be removed under the amendment. If they were found to be illegal, surely they would be evicted. The whole problem would then go away because they would no longer be living in the premises and would, unfortunately, come under the homeless category which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, believes is acceptable.
	I also have a problem with Amendment No. 93. I cannot believe that anyone in our democracy is suggesting that the police should knock on doors to check whether the residents should be registered there. We would soon have cases, and quite rightly, of police harassment. I wonder whether, in tabling the amendment, the noble Lord has thought through its consequences. I am sure that he would soon be complaining that the police were not doing enough about crime because they were too busy going from door to door checking whether people should be on the electoral register. I hope that he will reconsider both amendments. Certainly, there is a case for ensuring that there is no fraud, but the amendments as they stand are not acceptable legally as well as morally, and I hope that he will withdraw them.

Lord Jopling: I very much hope that my noble friend will not reconsider the amendments because they carry with them a great deal of sense. I fully support them. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said; that many people illegally occupying squats are already registered. I am indifferent to whether they are or are not, but all we are proposing in the amendments is that they ought not to be.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is he saying that it should not be proven that they are illegal before the registration is removed, or that he takes it for granted that they are squatting and that therefore registration should be removed?

Lord Jopling: The noble Baroness took the next words out of my mouth and I am grateful for her prompt. I draw her attention to my Amendment No. 34, which states:
	"A declaration of local connection shall be of no effect if the lawful owner of the premises at the required address can show that the declarant is occupying that address unlawfully".
	He would have to show that to the registration officer. In my experience, most registration officers are local council officials and lawyers. They have access to legal advice within local authorities and it would be for the local council to satisfy itself that the owner of the property had shown that there was an illegal occupation. I imagine that it would then be open to the person illegally occupying the premises to appeal to the court. However, it is important that the owners of properties which are illegally occupied, having discovered that the occupants have registered on the electoral roll, should have the opportunity of going to the registration officer and saying, "Look, these people are occupying my property illegally. Here are the deeds which demonstrate that I am the owner. Come round with me and I shall show you the people who are occupying my property and show that I can't get rid of them. What else need I do to show you that my property is being occupied unlawfully?".
	I hope that my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish will not mind my saying this, but I believe that my amendment is one of the most important in this group. I hope that the noble Baroness feels that this particular amendment provides a satisfactory way of demonstrating to a registration officer, through the legal advice which is at his disposal, that this situation occurs, that it ought not to occur, and that such registration should be removed.

Lord Goodhart: We on these Benches regard this group of amendments as mean-spirited and, indeed, frankly absurd. As we know, squatting is a trespass but not a crime, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, quite rightly said. Of course, this amendment applies not only to squatters. It applies, for example, to people who have taken possession of property perfectly lawfully, or people whose tenancies have been terminated but who remain in occupation because that gives them a better chance of being rehoused. We all know that that is a very common practice. Until the court makes a possession order and they leave, they are occupying that property unlawfully. Therefore, they, too, will be disfranchised.
	However, the main point is that we should not, without good cause, deprive people of their civil rights, including the right to vote, which is one of the most important of those rights. Detention in prison after conviction is plainly a good cause. But why should squatters be deprived of their vote? They have not committed a breach of the criminal law. They are simply trespassing on someone else's property, and that seems to me to fall far short of anything that would justify depriving them of the right to vote.
	How does one prove that someone is an unlawful squatter? Of course, many squats now are lawful because they are licensed. Where they are not, there are fast-track powers for removal by court order. With all respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said about Amendment No. 34, I believe that most owners will be much too busy getting the squatters out of their property to bother to look at the electoral register and to go to the registration officer to make sure that the squatters do not get a vote. That is not what the owners are interested in; they are interested in getting back their property.
	Finally, and worst of all, Amendment No. 93 proposes that everyone who applies for a vote on the basis of a declaration of local connection will be checked by the police. That does not apply to people who register not by virtue of a declaration of local connection but because they are squatters who register as residents. Amendment No. 93 does not apply to them. However, the police will have to check everyone who is homeless and makes a declaration of local connection. What a waste of valuable and short police time. Coming from the party which always claims to be particularly strong on law and order, I must say that I find that completely ridiculous.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: In my view, these amendments confuse two important issues: on the one hand, the unlawful occupation of property; on the other, the right to register and to vote. I believe that those two issues should be kept separate. I have read the amendments and given the matter some thought over the weekend. I have also read some press reports on the issue of squatters and voters. One would imagine that the Government are about to introduce a law which gives squatters the right to vote. It is clear, and has been apparent for a long time, that squatters have always had the right to vote. This amendment seeks simply to take away that right.
	However, this is a broader issue. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made the case perfectly well. These amendments are in danger of leading us into an oppressive situation. Frankly, I believe that noble Lords opposite are in danger of being accused of wasting police time: sending police officers round in the middle of the night to check whether someone is bona fide for electoral purposes seems to me to be somewhat heavy-handed.
	Who is to say ultimately whether or not someone occupies property lawfully? In circumstances where someone is licensed to occupy premises, there may be some uncertainty. It may well be the case that someone's tenancy has come to a conclusion and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, they are attempting to exercise their rights as a homeless person and seek accommodation from a local authority. Therefore, I believe that these are heavy-handed amendments and, for the reasons which I have given, I believe that they should be rejected.
	It is clear that the party opposite is, again, trying to narrow access and the civil right to the franchise. I cannot believe that that is right and proper. In general with this legislation, we are trying to make it easier for people to vote and to exercise their civil rights. That is the system which we have always had. We are trying to open up access and to create a more inclusive society. That is the purpose of this legislation: to bolster, and to give greater confidence to, our electoral system. It seems to me that, in these amendments, Conservative Members are trying to close that down. That cannot be right and it cannot be good for local democracy. We should be encouraging people to register and to exercise their right to vote. Whether they are lawful or unlawful occupants of a property is neither here nor there. That is a separate issue to be tackled. The noble Lord was a member of the government who did just that. In the past, Labour governments have attempted to close down opportunities for the illegal occupation of property. However, as I say, that is a separate issue.
	I believe that in principle we should give people the right to vote and that we should try to extend that wherever possible. This legislation attempts to do that. I believe that noble Lords opposite are trying to create a kind of "squatter shock horror" story where it does not exist. I believe that they should consider most carefully before they move amendments, particularly those such as Amendment No. 93. I suggest to noble Lords opposite that they should reconsider their position and withdraw the amendments.

The Earl of Onslow: I suspect that the noble Lord may be able to help us more than most members of the Government Front Bench on this particular issue. When one receives one's voting paper to fill in, in squatter households how is the head of the household described?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is for those who live in that household to determine that issue. I have never had to fill in a form and it is a long time since I have been in that position. However, I believe that we are discussing the important issue of someone's right to vote, and that is the issue on which we should concentrate. I believe that noble Lords opposite are trying to narrow that right and access to it. That is regrettable.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The real issue here is that the clause is headed "Residence ... general". It refers to residence for the purposes of registration. It seems to me perfectly pertinent to ask whether the residence is legal or illegal. In an impassioned defence of the Government's position, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that, from the point of view of registration, it did not matter if someone trespassed on someone else's property. However, it is precisely because they are trespassing on that property that they are asking for registration to vote. It is not unrelated to the fact that they are there illegally. They are saying, "Here I am. I want the right to vote from here".
	Therefore, I do not believe that we have received an entirely satisfactory response. I believe that it is a little exaggerated to conjure up pictures of police being sent round in the middle of the night. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said that it is difficult to evict squatters. That, indeed, seems to be the case, particularly people who are squatters for political reasons as, for example, is the case at Faslane nuclear base in Scotland. It seems amazing that it should be suggested that they are legally entitled to a vote if they are in a squat of that nature.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Does the noble Lord not accept that it was a court of law which allowed the Greenham women in a similar situation to register and vote?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It may well have been, but I do not agree with that decision any more than I agree with the recent decision at Greenock sheriff court which said that three women who had vandalised property of the British Government at Faslane nuclear base were guilty of no offence at all. That was an amazing decision. I presume that the Government whom the noble Baroness supports have also decided that it is an amazing decision because they have decided to appeal against that decision. Sheriffs are not infallible and can make wrong decisions as, indeed, I think the Government would agree the sheriff at Greenock has done.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Does the noble Lord accept that if we were to deprive people of the right to vote in the way in which his amendment suggests, we might also begin to fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights? Does he not believe that that is an important consideration in these matters?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Government should not tempt me down the road of the European Convention on Human Rights because, for the third time in just about as many months, the Government are about to be found wanting in Scotland for having legislation which infringes that convention. Frankly, we shall have severe difficulty with those decisions if they stand up in the appeal courts.
	That was not a good point to make on a day when I gather that the whole system of children's panels in Scotland, which we have heard being lauded on many occasions, may be found, to my mind in a quite crazy way, to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. It will be amazing if that convention becomes the tool by which that excellent method of dealing with young juveniles who have committed crimes must be changed adversely because of that decision.
	I digress principally because the noble Lord invited me to be careful of the convention on human rights. I suggest that he should take that warning back to his friends in government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 5, line 10, leave out ("for example,").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My amendment seeks to leave out the words "for example". Much as I have searched, I do not believe that I have ever found before in legislation the words "for example". I have asked a fair number of my noble friends and they too are fairly puzzled. I suggest that it is an extremely bad example to set. I suggest that the Government should accept my amendment and delete those words so that the clause reads without the words "for example". I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the reasoning behind the amendment. I hope that I can reassure him.
	It is a long-standing principle that electoral registration officers determine who is resident in their area and, therefore, who may be entered on their electoral register. In the overwhelming majority of cases, that is a straightforward exercise. It is quite a simple matter of fact whether or not a person is living at a particular address.
	But there is also a grey area. There are cases, perhaps involving people who are only temporarily in residence, which are less clear cut. In such cases, registration officers must reach a judgment. They must decide whether they are satisfied that a name should appear on the register. To make that decision, they must take account of knowledge of the circumstances, common sense and, indeed, the considerable volume of case law which now exists on this question.
	Registration officers must also take account of whatever guidance the relevant legislation gives and the words of new Section 5(2) of the 1983 Act are to be inserted by Clause 3 and appear at line 10 on page 5. They are there to help them. But--this is the crucial point--the words in the Bill are not the only factor which must be taken into account. If local knowledge leads the registration officer to believe strongly that there should be a different decision, he should clearly do what he thinks right. Equally, if a court decision were to suggest that a different decision should be reached, we should expect that to be followed.
	The words in the Bill are simply one of the factors which must be taken into account. That is why they are qualified by "for example". I trust that with that explanation, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am puzzled by this. What do the words "for example" do? With respect, I do not believe that the Minister has explained that. It really had not crossed my mind, until my noble friend was speaking, that "for example" is rather unusual in statute law. If my noble friend is quite wrong about that, I am sure that the Minister will correct him immediately and say that "for example" appears frequently in many Bills and Acts of Parliament.
	I have the impression that that is not the case. I do not quite know what a court of law would make of those words when it came to interpreting the will of Parliament. It would be a very odd idea if, in legislating, the government of the day were to illustrate what is meant by examples in the wording of the Bill. The Minister would be well advised to take this back to his legal advisers and ask them what they mean by it and what is its value.

Lord Borrie: I do not know whether it will help the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but I recall that in the Consumer Credit Act 1974, there is a whole schedule--if not more than one schedule--in which, deliberately, the draftsman has given examples of factual situations to which certain basic provisions of the Act apply. Most people looking at that legislation have found it extremely helpful.
	I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that it is an unusual situation. But being unusual is one thing; being unhelpful is another. As I say, most people thought that that example was extremely helpful.
	I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has tabled further amendments which I have not yet noticed, but if the words "for example" are omitted, it does not make sense because the words following the words "for example" are simply an example of the words which precede them. I should have thought that that was helpful rather than otherwise, even if unusual.

Lord Naseby: In his answer, the Minister did not differentiate between primary and secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is right that it is not unusual to find "for example" in a schedule. But as one who in another place was responsible for five years for secondary legislation, I am mystified as to why the Law Officers have recommended that there should be a "for example" in this primary legislation.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Surely a schedule is part of primary legislation. It is part of the Bill.

Lord Naseby: It may be, but this is not in a schedule. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that we have seen it in a clause of a Bill. My noble friend on the Front Bench is asking why this has appeared in primary legislation in a clause. Is it on advice from the Law Officers that that is to be the way forward now in the new age, or is it that it has just appeared as an example? It will be incredibly difficult for the courts to interpret those matters. I suggest that the Minister should either tell the Committee that the Law Officers are recommending that it should be done in primary rather than secondary legislation for reasons given; or that they are not. Perhaps if we had an answer to that, we should accept it.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am very glad to have provoked the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to his feet because I am always interested to hear his contributions. But on this occasion he did rather invalidate the point he was making by quoting a schedule. I was asking whether there is a section of an Act of Parliament which uses those words "for example". If that is the case, I shall be very interested and I shall have had an educative day, which I do not always have. I am sure that my noble friend is correct to say that it is highly unusual to use these words in a clause. If I am wrong, perhaps the noble Lord will say so and I shall then be happy to withdraw my argument. However, if my noble friend is right, I believe that the Minister ought to look again at the advisability of using such a form of words here.
	Given the huge volume of legislation that churns its way through Parliament, drafting is not usually famous for being immaculate. Indeed, it can be rather uneven and spotty.

The Earl of Onslow: I regret that the reply given by the Minister rather missed the point made by my noble friend. Either this is a new departure in legislation--and if it is a new departure, then why has it been done?--or the words have been put in only because someone thought they ought to put them in just for fun. We all know that such mistakes can happen. All we are asking for here is clarity and precedent. If precedent is to be broken, it should be broken for a reason. The Minister's response did not even attempt to respond to that point.
	Will the Minister please answer the following two questions? First, is my noble friend right when he says that this form of words is unprecedented? Secondly, if he is right, why has it been put into the Bill? If the Minister does not know the answers to those questions, could he take them away and find out?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am puzzled by most of the Minister's reply. I thought that I had attempted to delete lines 10 to 14. However, it appears that I have not done so and that they would remain in the Bill. Indeed, they are qualified by the beginning of subsection (2) where it states,
	"Regard shall be had, in particular".
	When I was a Government Minister I recall that I had to make the point constantly that I was reluctant to give examples because it then would be assumed that anything else would not be an example and would not fall within the scope of the legislation. For that reason, I find the use of the words "for example" most odd. Removing the words would not change the meaning of the following subsection; indeed, nothing would be changed.
	When, nearly two hours ago, I suggested that certain unnecessary words should be removed from the Bill, the Minister persuaded me that I should not attempt to do it because of the Maastricht Treaty. I have now had an opportunity to look at the first Maastricht Treaty and it appears, so far as concerns the first treaty, that the position as the Minister explained it would not be the case. However, it may well be the case as regards the second Maastricht Treaty.
	I do not believe that we should return to this matter, but I think that it is an important point. Why put in the words "for example" when there is no indication that they have been used elsewhere in primary legislation? They add nothing to the meaning of this part of the Bill. For that reason, I shall seek the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 134.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 5, line 32, at end insert--
	("( ) Subsection (3) above shall apply in relation to a person's absence by reason of his attendance on a course provided by an educational institution as it applies in relation to a person's absence in the performance of any duty such as is mentioned in that subsection.").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendments Nos. 17 and 120 and part of Amendment No. 140 are designed to rectify an anomaly. Students now routinely obtain absent votes, even though, strictly speaking, the law does not include attendance at an educational establishment as one of the grounds on which an absent vote may be granted.
	We should be doing everything we can to enable this group of electors, particularly young electors, to vote. Allowing students who are studying at an establishment some distance from their parental home to vote by proxy is one way of doing so. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that this is something which they should continue to be able to do.
	The amendments, therefore, simply allow for attendance at an educational establishment to be included as ground for obtaining a proxy vote. Postal votes will, of course, in future be available to all.
	Amendments Nos. 131, 137, 138, 139, 142 and the rest of Amendment No. 140 are purely technical. They are consequential on the decision of the Scottish Parliament that provisions on absent voting in Scottish local elections should be included in the Bill. That is a matter with which we shall deal in more depth when we reach Amendments Nos. 118 and 119. A consequence of this is that references to local government elections in Sections 5 to 9 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 can be repealed as they will apply only to Northern Ireland but not to local elections. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Residence: patients in mental hospitals who are not detained offenders or on remand]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 6, leave out lines 3 to 9 and insert--
	("(3) A person registered in a register of electors in pursuance of an application for registration made by virtue of subsection (2) above is entitled to remain so registered until--
	(a) the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date when the entry in the register first takes effect, or
	(b) another entry made in respect of him in any register of electors takes effect (whether or not in pursuance of an application made by virtue of subsection (2)),
	whichever first occurs.
	(3A) Where the entitlement of such a person to remain so registered terminates by virtue of subsection (3) above, the registration officer concerned shall remove that person's entry from the register, unless he is entitled to remain registered in pursuance of a further application made by virtue of subsection (2).").

Lord Bach: In moving Amendment No. 18, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 37, 62 and 73.
	The amendments are technical in nature. It is hoped that they will serve purposes which will be appreciated by the Committee. They either make matters explicit on the face of the Bill rather than leave them to be settled in secondary legislation or simplify the drafting of the Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 bring Clauses 4 and 5, which provide for the registration of mental patients and remand prisoners, into line with the new Section 7C, which is inserted by Clause 6 of the Bill. The effect of the amendments is to make entitlement to be registered for a 12-month period explicit on the face of the Bill as opposed to being included in regulations.
	Amendments Nos. 37, 62 and 73 simplify the drafting. They relate to registration by means of a declaration of local connection by service voters (Amendment No. 62, to Schedule 1) and overseas voters (Amendment No. 73, to Schedule 2). I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 5 [Residence: persons remanded in custody etc.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Page 6, leave out lines 41 to 47 and insert--
	("(3) A person registered in a register of electors in pursuance of an application for registration made by virtue of subsection (2) above is entitled to remain so registered until--
	(a) the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date when the entry in the register first takes effect, or
	(b) another entry made in respect of him in any register of electors takes effect (whether or not in pursuance of an application made by virtue of subsection (2)),
	whichever first occurs.
	(3A) Where the entitlement of such a person to remain so registered terminates by virtue of subsection (3) above, the registration officer concerned shall remove that person's entry from the register, unless he is entitled to remain registered in pursuance of a further application made by virtue of subsection (2).").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 7, line 15, leave out from ("order") to end of line 16 and insert ("under section 70 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 or a transfer direction under section 71 of that Act made in respect of a person to whom that section applies by virtue of subsection (2)(c) of that section").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 21:
	After Clause 5, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:REGISTRATION AND VOTING RIGHTS OF ASYLUM SEEKERS
	(". After section 7A of the 1983 Act (as inserted by section 5 above) there shall be inserted--
	"Registration and voting rights of asylum seekers.
	7AA. A person who claims political asylum in the United Kingdom but has not been given leave to remain shall not be entitled to register to vote, or vote, until and unless he is granted such leave."").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Amendment No. 21, tabled in my name, seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to try to clarify the position with regard to asylum seekers and whether or not they have the right to vote in this country. Indeed, in some ways this relates back to the first group of amendments debated today. Asylum seekers can be divided into two groups: those from a non-Commonwealth country and those from a Commonwealth country.
	I have little doubt that those coming from a non-Commonwealth country do not have the right to vote in this country, nor will any provision in the Bill give them the right so to vote. However, I should like confirmation of that.
	I am not so certain of the position as regards asylum seekers from Commonwealth countries. If one refers back to the first debate we had this afternoon, one must assume that such people will have the right to vote while they are here claiming asylum and before their cases are decided. As Members of the Committee will know, that can sometimes take a long time.
	I imagine that when legislation began on rights to vote, this was not much of a problem. Indeed, in 1983 and 1985 when changes were made to the Representation of the People Acts it was probably not much of a problem either. But the position has worsened, if by that one means the number of people who arrive here asking for asylum and the length of time they wait until that decision is made. The Committee will know from previous exchanges in this Chamber that the position is now much worse than it has probably ever been. My figures date only from 1994, and the situation is certainly worse than it has been in the past decade or so.
	The last government, thanks to some measures I piloted through your Lordships' Chamber, got the figures down to 29,640 applicants in 1996 and during the course of 1997 they went up to 32,500. That is probably not terribly significant, but they then went to 46,000 in 1998 and, as we know, in 1999 the figures exceeded 71,000. Many of those people have to stay in this country for a considerable time before a final decision is made on their application, one of the problems being that the appeals procedure is extraordinarily lengthy.
	I had experience of the procedure as a Minister and find it hard to believe that Mr Jack Straw will be able to deal expeditiously with the Afghan asylum applicants who arrived at Stansted. While the Home Office may deal with them swiftly--a change from the way it deals with the usual applicant--if they get into the legal system of appeals and counter appeals it will take a considerable time before a final decision is taken. In fact, I wager that most of those people will be here for so long that they will eventually be granted exceptional leave to remain.
	But that is beside the point. The number of asylum seekers who come to this country--a measure of the way Britain is perceived thanks to what this Government have said--is a problem. Of course, the Afghan asylum seekers are not eligible to vote while they are asylum seekers. They would be eligible to vote only if they were granted asylum. I am not sure what happens if they are given exceptional leave to remain and perhaps the Minister can help. Is someone from a non-Commonwealth country who is granted exceptional leave to remain allowed to register and vote in this country?
	The important point is what happens when asylum seekers come into this country from Commonwealth countries. Are they allowed to vote while they remain asylum seekers? If so, we are literally facing two different ways. We have not come to a conclusion whether they should be allowed to stay in this country, yet we allow them to vote in this country. We must try to bring some logic--I believe it is called "joined-up government"--between one piece of legislation and another.
	The other problem is, if asylum seekers are allowed to vote, does it mean that there will be a concentration of them voting, for example, in a constituency like Dover, which has been badly hit by the number of asylum seekers who end up there? I cannot quite understand how they get there without going through another member state of the European Union, but we can leave that to one side.
	The question is that, if it had not been an Afghan plane at Stansted, but instead, for instance, the Indian hijacked plane of a few weeks ago which ended up on the tarmac at Stansted, and people on that plane had applied for asylum and been removed to Moreton-in-the-Marsh, would they have been allowed to register to vote as Commonwealth citizens? I have to be clear about this and at the risk of being accused by the Liberal Democrats of being hard-hearted, I do not feel that asylum seekers should have the right to vote in this country. That right should come to those who are eventually granted asylum. I am open to argument in relation to exceptional leave to remain and will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in that regard.
	This Bill gives us an opportunity to clarify the situation with regard to the legal positions on the right to register and vote in this country, and if we feel like tidying them up, there is nothing wrong with doing that; after all, the Government will claim--and rightly in the case of the clause on people in mental institutions, on remand prisoners and on the homeless--that that is exactly what they are doing. We are entitled to look at other issues surrounding the right to vote and to ask the questions I have just asked. I look forward to clarification from the Minister, and on that basis, I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, may be a little surprised that I believe he raises an important issue which certainly needs clarification. I have a good deal of sympathy with what he says.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We will no doubt be in a happy condition after this discussion. This will be a rarity, if not an unknown situation.
	It seems only fair to answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for starters. In relation to asylum seekers, the situation is pretty much as he said. Non-Commonwealth asylum seekers do not have the right to vote and this Bill will not confer any such rights--let us be absolutely clear about that. With regard to those granted exceptional leave to remain, they will not be able to vote unless and until they are granted citizenship. So the answer is clear on that issue also.
	I can be brief in responding to the further points made by the noble Lord. I shall not go into endless reams of statistics on the asylum issue; that is not a debate for today, though it would, I am sure, be interesting. We have already discussed the Commonwealth citizens in this country and the fact that they are allowed to vote in our elections. That is just as it should be and we have no plans to change the situation. I accept that the position of people whose status is uncertain is rather different and I clarified the two points there. Accordingly, I should like to explore the possibility of drafting an amendment to the Bill which will achieve the same effect as Amendment No. 21 and explore with electoral administrators whether or not it will be enforceable in practice. That is an important question and we will need to consult with them as to how the effect of the amendment may be best achieved.
	We have considerable sympathy with the amendment. It is going in the right direction and I hope that, with my undertaking, all corners of the Chamber will be satisfied and the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment this afternoon.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure that this is going to do my reputation any good at all. Not only is the Minister saying he has sympathy with the proposal, but also the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has some sympathy. One must accept these things with good grace, and I do. I am pleased to hear the Minister's assurance that he will look at this and I am sure he accepts that it is an unusual amalgam. No doubt 20 or 30 years ago nobody bothered too much about it because it was not an issue. But I am grateful to him for saying that he will take it away and look at it, and I look forward to hearing from him either by letter or by an amendment at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 6 [Notional residence: declarations of local connection]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 7, line 39, after ("not") insert (", for the purposes of section 4 above,").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This group contains technical amendments and I shall endeavour to provide a brief explanation of them and not detain the Committee too long.
	Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 clarify the point that residence needs to be construed in accordance with Section 4. Amendment No. 39 reflects the fact that under rolling legislation an electoral register lasts indefinitely rather than for a year, as is presently the case, which means that removal of names from the register becomes necessary. Amendment No. 40 excludes prisoners on remand who are detained other than at a penal institution or mental hospital from the need to conduct a canvass.
	Amendment No. 42 is a drafting amendment designed to give greater emphasis to the point that the power to alter the electoral register derives from the new Section 10A.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 44, which is tabled under two names on the Marshalled List. That combination may have raised some eyebrows during noble Lords' deliberations. As we have demonstrated this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and I are perhaps something of an "odd couple". I suspect that our motives in seeking to remove the words on page 19 of the Bill may be a little different. I should like to explain why the Government seek to do so, before explaining why what I believe to be the noble Lord's reasons for so doing are wrong.
	Our reason for wanting to delete the power in new Section 10(7) of the 1983 Act is that the power reappears as new subsection (7) of new Section 10A, which is to be inserted by Amendment No. 46. The power of removal will appear as new Section 10A(6), and new Section 10A(7) qualifies that power. I hope that noble Lords managed to follow that explanation. The power in question is the one to make regulations enabling registration officers to keep names on the electoral register for a year in cases where the electoral registration form has not been returned.
	It is an unfortunate fact that every year a large number of households fail to return their electoral registration form. As we know, electoral registration officers are assiduous creatures who chase missing forms, often paying several visits to the properties concerned. But, even then, there are some properties from which no information is forthcoming. A practice has evolved in such circumstances of keeping existing names on the register for a year, and sometimes longer, in the absence of any evidence that the people concerned have moved away.
	We believe that that is right. In cases of uncertainty, the decision should always be to keep people on the register rather than disfranchising them. We believe that to be an important democratic principle. The Bill will simply put existing practice on a statutory footing and, at the same time, make it clear that names should be kept on the register for only a single year. I am sorry that the Opposition want to remove this provision, as to do so could result in denying people the right to vote.
	Amendment No. 45 allows for someone who has changed address in the same area, and who is not on the register in respect of his or her new address, to be added to the register in respect of that address, as a result of the annual canvass.
	Amendment No. 46 adds a new subsection to Section 10A, which concerns preparation of electoral registers. New subsection (5) makes provision as to the time at which an entitlement to be registered ceases. New subsection (6) requires the registration officer to remove a person falling within subsection (5). New subsection (7) qualifies that power. New subsection (8) disapplies these provisions in respect of those whose entitlement to be registered lasts for only 12 months. Amendment No. 48 is consequential on Amendment No. 46.
	Amendment No. 51 simplifies new Section 13A(1)(a) because Amendment No. 46 defines the word "determines" as,
	"determines in accordance with regulations".
	Amendment No. 52 combines paragraphs (b) and (c) of new Section 13A(1) to deal with removal of names from the register generally. This will cover not only removal under new Section 10A(6), but also removal when a 12-month period of entitlement expires.
	Amendments Nos. 64 and 141 reflect the fact that under new Section 1(1)(a) entitlement to vote depends on being registered in the constituency concerned. Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 are consequential on those amendments. Amendment No. 72 provides for the evidential effect of a registration officer's certificate that a person was--or was not--registered at a particular time. Amendment No. 74 is necessary because provisions relating to the registration of overseas electors are now contained solely in the 1985 Act. Amendments No. 75 and 76 are consequential on Amendment No. 64. They remove provisions relating to the effect of Section 49 from new Sections 2 and 3 of the 1985 Act. Amendment No. 79 applies Amendment No. 72 for the purposes of local elections in Northern Ireland.
	I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but this group contains a large number of amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I suppose that, initially, some Members of the Committee thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and I were absolutely on the same wave-length when they noticed our names attached to the same amendment. However, as the noble Lord very fairly pointed out, we are probably approaching the matter from entirely different directions. Indeed, we have probably ended up in quite different places. The noble Lord seeks to remove subsection (7) and to replace it with some alternative words; I have also sought to remove that subsection, but do not propose to replace it with any alternative words.
	We are in a new situation with regard to the register. It is now not just a once-a-year exercise; it is a rolling register, which means that the electoral position will not be frozen for a whole year--indeed, for more than a year, as is really the case--but will roll on month to month. There will be a bit of a freeze in October and November, but that is all. Therefore, the question of removing names from the register becomes even more important. Moreover, it is also important if one is to judge the success of all the changes that we are now considering.
	To put it simply, if an electoral register contains 100 names and 60 people vote, it is very obvious that a 60 per cent turn-out has been achieved. However, if 10 of those 100 names could not vote even if they wanted to--perhaps because they were dead or because they had moved away--but, nevertheless, remained on the register, the turn-out would look a staggering 66.66 per cent, which, on the face of it, might be claimed by the Government to be a great success as regards some other experiment being conducted. In fact, it would not be anything of the kind; it would simply be a reflection that we should not determine turn-out based just on the electoral register because it is not wholly accurate.
	It may seem odd if I pray in aid some words of the party opposite, the Liberal Democrat Party and the Scottish National Party over the 20 years after 1979. Those noble Lords who remember these events will recall that there was a hurdle in the Welsh and Scottish referendums in 1979 (imposed by a Labour MP in the other place) of 40 per cent of those registered to vote. There was much argument beforehand, much argument at the time and there has been much argument since about the unfairness involved because, many people on the register on which that 40 per cent was based were either dead or had moved away to such an extent that they could not possibly vote there.
	Therefore, the number on the register--the denominator--is a very important factor, not just for ensuring that everyone who can vote is on the register; but also for ensuring that everyone who can no longer vote is removed from the register at the first available opportunity.
	Although my next piece of information is fairly "old hat", I do not believe that the situation will have changed. In fact, I suspect that it may possibly have got worse because the mobility of population, and so on, has actually increased over the past 20 years, or so, since the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs inquired into the Representation of the People Act in 1982 and 1983. At that time, the annual survey of the methods of compiling the electoral register carried out by the Office of Population Censuses & Surveys included data to the extent on which EROs (electoral registration officers) carry forward names from one register to the next.
	The 1990 survey showed that 6 per cent of all EROs do not carry forward at all; 50 per cent carry forward only if there is good supporting evidence--and, of those, 7 per cent believe that "carried forward with good evidence" is, in effect, a policy of not carrying forward at all; 18 per cent carry forward for one year only; 6 per cent carry forward for two years only; and 20 per cent carry forward for three years or more. That really means that 44 per cent of all EROs carry forward most or all of the names in the absence of any good supporting evidence to the contrary. That is a fairly staggering number of names being carried forward. It is now time to ask whether that is sensible. Later in the Committee stage I shall propose that the electoral registration officer uses some of the tools that I believe are to hand in order to make sure that the register is up to date. I shall speak about those proposals when we reach them.
	The point at issue here is that the Government, in seeking to remove subsection (7) that we have discussed and reinstating it in another form, are not dealing with the problem of carrying names forward when there is no justification for that. If we want the register to be an accurate, rolling reflection of who is entitled to vote, we must take all possible steps to ensure that people's names are not carried forward year after year when they have made no attempt--perhaps because they are no longer able to make such an attempt--to fill in the form and send it back. They may simply not be there any more. It is slipshod to allow that situation to continue in the future when our objective is to try to make the register as accurate as possible to ensure that as many people as possible vote and to ensure that we know exactly what the turn-out is. It should not be measured against a register which may be in part fictional, but should be measured against a register which is as accurate as possible.
	While, initially, I was pleased to note that the noble Lord had added his name to my amendment, I rapidly detected that he was not going as far as I would have wished. I regret that the Government have not taken more vigorous steps in this regard. However, I shall reserve most of my fire for later when I shall make some helpful suggestions as to how they may be able to improve the clearing of the register.

Baroness Hanham: I support the comments of my noble friend on this matter. I live in a central London borough. Many London boroughs have an annual population turnover of about 33 to 34 per cent. In some wards in my borough the figure is as high as 40 per cent. It is therefore extremely important that those who have left are taken off the register as soon as possible; otherwise, the register is meaningless. I support the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are certainly an odd couple. However, I am warming to this odd couple. It is a relationship that could go far.
	I return to the subject in hand. On balance we have tried to recognise in part the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. It cannot be right that names remain on the register year after year after year. We believe that there is a balance to be struck here. We believe that a period of a year is about right. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, makes a good point in this regard. She will probably recall that I was the leader of Brighton and Hove Council. As in the noble Baroness's own good borough, we have wards in Brighton and Hove which have phenomenal population turnovers in the course of a year. I believe that one of those wards had a turnover of 60 per cent. In those circumstances it is hard to keep track of people's movements. Often they shift simply to the flat next door or to another street.
	However, I believe that it is right to enable registration officers to keep names on the list for a further year. That is in part what our amendments seek to achieve. I believe that by clarifying the matter and providing a cut-off--a cap, if you like--we have struck the right balance. However, I understand the point that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, have made. Although our opinions may diverge with regard to what should happen to the amendment that stands in both our names, we share a concern to make the register accurate. In his usual entertaining manner the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made some good points on the need for an accurate register. However, I trust that with those comments he will feel happy with what we are trying to do.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]

Lord Jopling: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 8, line 23, at end insert--
	("( ) the nature of previous registration and the address at which he was previously registered").

Lord Jopling: This amendment is an example of my desire to find ways to extend the opportunity for people to register and to vote, but at the same time to try to avoid as far as possible unnecessary abuses. That is what Amendments Nos. 24, 32 and 33, which stand in my name, are designed to achieve.
	Clause 6 deals with the thorny matter of local connection. As my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, he has no objection to extending the opportunity to vote to homeless people. I do not object to the concept of local connection. However, it is an important new feature of our electoral law which we ought to consider extremely carefully as the creation of this concept of local connection gives rise to wide opportunities for abuse. I am sorry that the Minister has not been a little more understanding about the anxieties that I and others have had with regard to the danger of abuse in this area. When he replies to the amendment I hope that he will recognise that there are opportunities for abuse in this area. I hope that he will agree with me that it is essential to do everything possible to try to avoid that.
	One can imagine that it is not impossible that people could appear apparently from nowhere and register multiple local connections in marginal constituencies at the time of by-elections or general elections. That is certainly what I am afraid of and what we need to safeguard against. I have drafted these amendments with a view to meeting that situation. I hope that the amendments achieve a variety of constructive objectives with regard to reducing the temptation to abuse the system.
	I turn to Amendment No. 33. In my view, a potential elector should declare a local connection personally at the registration officer's office. The applicant should be required at that stage to produce proof of his identity. I am most anxious to be fair to potential voters. I have asked myself whether it is unreasonable to insist on that condition of personal appearance at the registration officer's office and proof of identity. However, I do not honestly believe that it is. I do not think that it should prove to be a problem. One of the conditions of a homeless person registering a local connection is to give an undertaking that he will be able to go to that office to pick up electoral documents. Therefore a homeless person who declares a local connection may well have to go to that office in the circumstances of an election. If he is prepared to collect that correspondence from that office--he has to say so--I do not think it is unreasonable that he should be invited to go there to register.
	Nor, I believe, can it be unreasonable to suggest that homeless people, or anyone else trying to produce a local connection, should be asked to produce some form of identification. I cannot believe that people who wanted to vote could not provide some kind of identification, whether it be a pension book, unemployment document or something of that nature. I do not think that that is unreasonable.
	In cases where they cannot identify themselves at all as to who they are and what their names are, it is difficult to understand why they should be allowed to register to vote. It is difficult to justify cases where people who are unable to identify themselves should be allowed to vote; clearly that would be a potential source of electoral abuse.
	Turning to Amendment No. 24, I believe that potential voters declaring a local connection should say when they register where and when they were previously registered. That would help. I shall come on to this point shortly when I move to my next group of amendments. It may be that a homeless person seeking to establish a local connection would say "I was never previously registered". While that should not be a bar to people going on the register, they should be asked where and when they were previously registered. If they say that they have never been registered, I am not for a moment saying that they should not be put on the register, but at least the registration officer would be making some effort to find out the background of potential voters to ensure that there were not multiple applications. That would be some guard against abuses.
	Amendment No. 32 seeks to require that at the point of registration persons wishing to establish a local connection should, when they go to register, be given a certificate by the registration officer. Such a certificate would verify their registration. Potential voters would be required to prescribe their signatures on the certificate in order that it could be presented at a polling station to verify that the person claiming the local connection was properly who he said he was.
	I know that this lays conditions additional to those in the Bill on people seeking to establish a local connection. As I said earlier, I have asked myself repeatedly whether they are unreasonable conditions. I do not think that they are. There are justifiable suspicions that abuses of the electoral system could arise. That a person seeking to establish a local connection should be asked to identify himself or herself with a certificate from the registration officer, which is signed by himself or herself, would be a safeguard against some such abuses.
	I hope that the Government are able to accept the amendments. I believe that they are helpful; they are not onerous; and they would give confidence to those who look at the electoral system that it is not easy to skirt around and to cheat. I beg to move.

Lord Rennard: I have sympathy with my noble friend's amendments; there is a potential for abuse.
	I am particularly keen on the availability of the new declaration of local connections in order to ensure the right to vote of homeless people. It seems to hit the right balance between how we prevent abuse and how we allow homeless people the right to vote. However, I have concerns with these specific amendments, in particular with the one in regard to obliging people to say where they came from previously. I am concerned, for example, about the problems that this would cause battered wives. They may have become homeless as a result of being battered wives, and it would be a considerable problem for them if they had to declare their previous registration in this process. We must be concerned about that.
	I sympathise particularly with the amendment in regard to parliamentary by-elections. There may be a considerable period of time between a parliamentary by-election becoming known and the date by which one may wish to be registered. That is a sensible consideration.
	My main concern is about the necessary proof of identity for those who do not have a red-and-white striped badge. It is difficult for homeless people to prove their identity beyond doubt. Satisfactory evidence of identity to the registration officer would be a sensible provision.

Earl Russell: I support what my noble friend Lord Rennard said about proof of identity. A similar provision to the one envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, was introduced in relation to benefits in the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997. It is causing considerable problems. The House to some extent foresaw this, but not in sufficient numbers to prevent the measure going through.
	To take my noble friend's example, if it is applied to battered wives, very often they have perhaps had to leave the house in the middle of the night, in their night-dress, as fast as they could possibly go. They do not have time in that situation to pick up their passports, credit cards and all the other identification documents. The same applies to people who have to leave their houses because of fire, which continues to happen even in the most well ordered society.
	In its report Still Running, the Children's Society has drawn attention to the difficulties encountered by 15 and 16 year-olds who have been thrown out by their parents in being able to produce proofs of identity. They cannot go back to ask the parents who threw them out for their birth certificates. If we all lived such well-ordered lives as the amendment envisages, it would be a reasonable and perhaps a necessary provision. But as it is, it may do a good deal of harm.
	I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, about the accuracy of the register, but people are in such a continual state of flux that it is inevitable that any register is going to be inaccurate. The question is whether one would rather have it inaccurate by including people who should not have been included or by excluding people who should not have been excluded. We have a simple choice: not of getting it right but of which mistake we would rather make.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendments of my noble friend Lord Jopling are very interesting. Amendment No. 47, which stands in my name, is grouped with them.
	I listened to the noble Earl with care, as I always do, and I am little puzzled by the example he gave of the battered wife. All that my noble friend's Amendment No. 24 seeks is that the lady, when she asks for a registration at a new address, tells the electoral registration officer where was her previous address and where she was previously registered. Unless I am misreading my noble friend's amendment, I do not see necessarily that that information will get out. It will not be news to the husband if the lady's name is removed from the electoral register; after all, she has left him and he knows that. The question is how he would get to know where she now was simply by her telling the ERO that she had come from another address. Perhaps the noble Earl can help me.

Earl Russell: There are cases where the name has got out from even such an elementary thing as the local police station being informed. Some such cases have ended in murder. There is a need for care.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I accept that point, but I find it hard to understand how the ERO could possibly release information about the wife to the pursuing husband--if I may call him that. I see the problem, but I would have to be persuaded that it was a real one in respect of telling the ERO the whereabouts of the woman's last address. My noble friend has a general and fairly good point in suggesting that people should say, when applying for a new registration, whether or not they have had a registration previously and, if so, where it was. I actually believe that everyone should be asked to do so, but those in this group in particular should be because obviously it is not as easy to register them as someone with a residence. I have great sympathy with that aspect of my noble friend's amendment.
	I should like also to say a few words about Amendment No. 33. My noble friend suggests that the person concerned should go to the registration officer's office to make the application. I shall come to the phrase,
	"accompanied by proof of identity",
	in a moment. Perhaps the Minister will help us by telling us how the Government envisage that such a person may make an application. It is quite different from the current arrangement where once per year canvassing forms come in through our front doors which we fill in and return. People who move address are among the people whom the ERO must identify when they ask to be registered at their new address. That is done through a form. I wonder how the individual is going to accomplish his registration. I do not believe that going to the registration officer's office is a particularly onerous thing to do. I notice that in new Section 7B(3)(a)(ii) one of the options given to such a homeless person is,
	"that he is willing to collect such correspondence periodically from the registration officer's office".
	The Government themselves therefore envisage that at least some homeless people will make their point of contact the registration officer's office, although I accept that some others may make it the homeless hostel where they tend to reside or the hostel with which they have the greatest amount of contact. I understand that point, but it does not seem any great problem to make the registration officer's office the important point of contact.
	As to proof of identity, I am more inclined to listen to my noble friend than to the noble Earl, although I appreciate his point about fire, flood and fleeing in the night. The fact is that anyone going through fire, flood and fleeing in the night will have to obtain some form of identification rather quickly. I was about to say that for most of us that might be a bank account or something of that nature, but we are talking about homeless people. For a homeless person it might well be the social security documents which entitle him to continue to claim social security. I suspect that a battered wife in the situation described earlier would be looking for social security documents. There will be some documents around that the registration office could check. My amendment is perhaps more acceptable to the Government--dare I say, having had a small success a little while ago--in that I do not specify what it should be. All I say is that the registration officer should have the responsibility to take whatever measures he deems necessary and reasonable to verify a declaration of local connection.
	In addition to my support for my noble friend's amendment, I suggest that my amendment would make it clear that the ERO has the power and the responsibility to make checks. If the Minister tells me that he already has such powers and that he would make checks, I shall be quite content. I suggest that my amendment would go at least some way to relieve the concerns of my noble friend Lord Jopling without perhaps getting into the difficult territory of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This has been a useful discussion. I want us to try to concentrate our minds a little on the benefits of the Bill and why it is drafted in this way. The whole purpose behind the Bill is surely to make it easier for the homeless, remand prisoners and mental health patients to be registered as electors. That is what we are trying to achieve. We are trying to be more inclusive and to encourage people to participate in democracy. While I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, to ensure that we root out any abuse and fraudulent intent within the system, we stick to that fundamental principle. Trying to achieve greater participation is one of the purposes behind the legislation. The electoral system in this country bears comparison with all others. Our system is remarkably free from corruption and abuse. I believe that most of us would subscribe to that point of view.
	In general, the provisions have been welcomed by all parties and that is as it should be. But having decided that those categories of people--the homeless, remand prisoners and mental health patients--should be allowed to register, it would be quite wrong if we were then to try to treat their registrations as different from everyone else's. Yet that is what these amendments seek to do: to discriminate between one set of electors and another.
	Ordinary electors do not have to be issued with identification certificates or have to produce such documents when seeking to vote, so why should we place an additional requirement on those who register by means of a declaration of local connection? I shall try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. A person who wants to register by means of a declaration of local connection will need to complete a form. He will have to do some form-filling in the same way as everyone else; such as a person who registers normally and wants to change his registration mid-year. A person may fill in the form and return it directly, or by post. That is how the procedure will work.
	Although I imagine that most homeless people will go to the town hall in person to register--which seems a logical consequence and a sensible way to behave--there is no reason to require them to do so when a similar requirement is not imposed on anyone else. I therefore cannot invite the Committee to accept Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
	In that context, while the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is phrased in perhaps slightly friendlier and looser terms, I cannot invite the Committee to support it either. Imagine for a moment what happens in the case of those who register in the normal way. If the annual canvass form comes back with an extra name of a person who was not registered the previous year, or if an extra person applies to be registered during the course of the year, the registration officer takes that on trust. He does not call round to check that the new person really lives at the address in question. There is no justification for treating in a different way those who wish to register by means of a declaration of local connection. There is no reason to believe that such people are more prone to fraud or dishonesty, although I should point out that paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 to the Bill makes it quite clear that submitting a fraudulent declaration of local connection is an offence.
	Whenever any name appears on the electoral register, whether in the normal way or through a declaration of local connection, there is a proper procedure for objecting to it. Another safeguard is therefore built in. That seems a much better approach than singling out those registering by means of a declaration of local connection and imposing an additional and heavy burden on already busy registration officers.
	Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 24, about which I can perhaps be a little kinder. A feature of rolling electoral registration is that people will be able to change their registration during the course of the year. They will be able to register in respect of their new address and be removed from the register in respect of their old address. For that system to work, the registration form will need to ask them for details of their previous registration. Exactly the same question will need to appear on the form for registering by means of a declaration of local connection. The Bill as drafted will allow for that to happen.
	Before I sit down, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for his contribution. He made a valuable point about domestic violence. We too want to ensure that the system we are putting in place protects those who are victims of aggression in any shape or form; in particular, those who are victims of racist attacks. There would be some equally telling vulnerability if we were to adopt the course recommended in the amendments.
	In the light of what I have said, and bearing in mind the reasonable points made by some of our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I hope that the noble Lord will decide that at this stage the amendments are not worth pursuing, although, as I said earlier, I recognise that we must be vigilant in tackling fraud and ensuring that there is no abuse of the system.

Lord Jopling: I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply. I repeat what I said in my earlier remarks. I remain unsure about whether the Government are being sufficiently prudent in dealing with the dangers of abuse in the registration and voting of the electorate. We may be able to discuss that further as time goes on.
	However, leaving the Minister's comments aside, I have to say that I was somewhat amused by the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He quoted the example of the battered wife who escapes in her night-dress in the middle of the night on to the frozen winter streets. The thought that he left in my mind was that the first thought of an unfortunate lady in that situation would be to ensure that she had registered her vote by demonstrating a local connection--no thought of going first to the hospital, if that was necessary; no thought of trying to find somewhere to live temporarily; no thought of trying to find some clothing; and no thought of trying to get assistance from the social services! He seemed to imply that that was the first thing, or very nearly the first thing, the lady would do. The noble Earl shakes his head. I am perhaps saying this rather flippantly and I do not want to be taken too seriously.
	I was heartened by what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said. At Second Reading I had the enormous pleasure of congratulating him on his maiden speech. I detected a good deal more sympathy in his remarks than I detected in the remarks of the noble Earl. It occurs to me that there are the seeds of co-operation between the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and myself over this matter. Whether that would compare with the new relationship across the Front Benches about which we heard, I am not entirely sure. In the course of the next few days perhaps I may have a discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, to see whether there is any way in which we can find a compromise amendment. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, wishes to intervene. I once worked for the noble Lord many years ago. I am not sure what words he is breathing into the ear of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.

Lord McNally: I am advising my noble friend Lord Rennard that when mixing with a former Chief Whip he should take a good lawyer with him.

Lord Jopling: On that happy note, hoping that a warmer co-operation may emerge, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 25 to 27 not moved.]

Lord Jopling: moved Amendment No. 28:
	Page 9, leave out lines 12 and 13.

Lord Jopling: I shall not delay the Committee for very long with this amendment. In new Section 7B(7)(b), it is enough to say that if a person makes more than one declaration of local connection, the declaration or declarations shall be void. I do not see the need for the words in lines 12 and 13. I do not want to argue in favour of my Amendment No. 30, which seeks to take out the words "or declarations". That is not necessary. But would it not make more sense if subsection (7)(b) stated merely that if a person makes more than one declaration of local connection, that declaration shall be void? I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend Lord Jopling has a good point. I can understand the Government not being keen to accept more than one declaration stating different addresses on the same day. However, if I read the provision correctly, someone could make a declaration on one day for one place and then make another declaration the next day for another place, in an adjacent ward or constituency. There should be some limit on the number of declarations someone can make. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend's amendment bears careful study by the Government.
	I accept that someone may make a declaration today and that in three or four months' time he may have moved sufficiently far away to want to make another declaration, but he should not be able to run two declarations at the same time. That brings us back to the protection offered by my noble friend's previous amendment--if someone makes a declaration, he should be asked (as I think we should all be asked) whether he has made a previous declaration and whether he is voting anywhere else using a declaration. That may be a way to get round the problem.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is a long-established principle that a person may appear on the electoral register more than once. People who have two residences are entitled to be registered in respect of both of them. That is a facility of which many Members of another place take advantage and, for all I know, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, may have been registered in both London and Cumbria during his distinguished service there. The Bill does nothing to change that position.
	However, the Bill does introduce the new concept of a declaration of local connection. It will be used by mental patients, remand prisoners and the homeless who would have difficulty in establishing residence in the normal way. Given that such declarations will be used by those who are unable to register in the normal way, it would be quite wrong, as the noble Lord said in moving the amendment, if such people were allowed to register more than once. A person who has difficulty establishing a single residence can hardly claim two residences.
	It was for precisely that reason that the Government brought forward an amendment in another place to ensure that nobody who is registered by means of a declaration of local connection may appear on the electoral register more than once. If Members of the Committee care to look at new Section 7C(2)(c), which appears towards the bottom of page 9 of the Bill, they will see that as soon as another entry appears in the register--whether an entry in the normal way or by means of a declaration of local connection--the person's existing entitlement to registration is deemed to have lapsed. The effect of that is exactly as I set out. It means that no one who is registered by means of a declaration of local connection can be registered twice.
	I believe that that takes care of the problem which the noble Lord highlighted. With that assurance, I trust that that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Jopling: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. For the record, I was for many years registered in three places, but of course I never voted in more than one. The noble Lord has gone some way to explain the background to this matter. It is a complicated business. We shall have to get used to the concept of local connections. I shall digest the words which the noble Lord was kind enough to utter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 9, line 20, at end insert--
	("( ) A declaration of local connection shall be of no effect if that declaration states an address within a constituency which is not represented by a Member of Parliament at the time when that declaration is received by the registration officer.").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am concerned about people moving into a constituency when they know that a by-election is pending. The difference between by-elections and general elections is that the Prime Minister normally gives four or five weeks' notice that a general election will be held and the matter is tightly controlled. A by-election is different. A Member may resign or, unfortunately, from time to time, a Member may die, and the by-election is possibly not held for three months after that event. Between the time when the by-election is first announced and the time when it takes place, three different dates might pass when the rolling register could be updated.
	A good example is the by-election for the Scottish Parliament which is to take place in the borough of Ayr. It will be held on 16th March, if memory serves me correctly. It has come about in rather mysterious circumstances: the sitting Member resigned in December--basically, so far as I can see, because he was not given a job by the First Minister, Mr Dewar. If that were a basis for resignation, quite a lot of Members of the other place would resign every so often!
	Knowing that the by-election will occur, people could roll on to that register on 1st January, 1st February and 1st March. People who have a house somewhere else are unlikely to move to Ayr deliberately to vote in the by-election--although, given the size of the majority, I imagine that the political parties are looking carefully at who is registering. Indeed, given the narrowness of the majority--a mere 25--the MSP's decision to resign the seat looks even more peculiar.
	It is the local connection problem that causes me the greatest concern. Ayr is not far from Glasgow, and people could move there in an attempt to bring enough votes to bear to make a major difference in the seat. Earlier, I mentioned those who are resident at the so-called "peace camp" at Faslane, in the Gareloch, who have a bee in their bonnets about nuclear weapons and who are protesting today. They might all decide to decamp to Ayr, register their local connection and try to influence the by-election. Their problem nowadays, of course, is that they cannot even go there to vote for the Labour Party, as Labour no longer believes in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament--although it is interesting that some Labour MSPs and MPs still do. I am pleased to say that my noble friend Lady Thatcher led us to victory in that general battle in the 1980s and the issue has by and large gone from the political debate.
	The point is that people could move during the three-month period. If it were the right three-month period, they could possibly obtain three updates. That cannot be right. The amendment seeks to ensure that the moment a constituency becomes vacant and a by-election is to take place, no more declarations of local connection will be taken.
	If I have read his previous replies correctly, I suspect that the Minister will say that we must treat the homeless vote in the same way as the resident vote. I understand the logic in that, but it might well lead us to say that in regard to a by-election the register should be frozen at the date of the Member's resignation or death. I should not like to go that far because people have genuine reasons for moving. However, we should watch out for those who might abuse the electoral system in a marginal constituency and migrate for the purposes of voting in what can often be a key by-election for the political parties--as the by-election at Ayr will be for the Labour Party and the Scottish Executive. I beg to move.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, may be surprised to learn that I have some sympathy with his amendment. At Second Reading, I said that in this regard I felt that it was possible for there to be tactical voting in a very real sense, and that we needed to examine the provision carefully. I am convinced that this is the one area of the Bill--probably the only one--under which registration could be abused. In a by-election such as the one that will take place at Ayr, where there is narrowness in the voting and the seat is keenly fought, people become terribly excited. I can see why they might want to move into the area to vote in the by-election.
	I have discussed the matter with electoral registration officers who believe that our concern is somewhat over-exaggerated. Nevertheless, it remains. The Minister, Mike O'Brien, said in the Commons that he would look again at the matter. My question to my noble friend is: have the Government looked again, and what is their conclusion?

Lord Bach: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, may be doubly surprised after I have finished my brief remarks on his amendment. We can offer the noble Lord some comfort on this matter. The Government feel that the fears that he outlined may be exaggerated. We do not believe that the homeless have either the means or the inclination to travel around the country trying to influence the results of by-elections. However, real concern has been expressed both in this Chamber and in another place.
	The Committee will not be surprised to hear that, right from the start of the Bill's passage through Parliament, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said that he was willing to listen to the views of other parties to see whether it could be improved. So I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied when I say that we shall bring forward an amendment or amendments on Report, no doubt based on his amendment as drafted, to achieve the same purpose. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing the amendment.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I knew that I was probably on to a reasonable thing when I was backed by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, who knows a thing or two, or 10, about elections. Indeed, we agree on some other matters. If my memory serves me rightly, the noble Baroness was a member of the commission that looked into referendums. I have quoted its recommendations extensively and approvingly, and shall probably do so again in relation to the next Bill on electoral matters to come before this House.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I am glad that we both agree. Although this may be a long-shot problem, it could be serious in a marginal seat. I look forward to the noble Lord's amendment, which I am sure will be different from mine. It will certainly cost more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 32 to 36 not moved.]

Lord Strabolgi: Before calling Amendment No. 37, I should point out that it relates to Clause 6, not Clause 7. There is a misprint on the Marshalled List.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Page 9, line 42, leave out from ("Where") to ("to") in line 44 and insert ("the entitlement of such a person").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Registration: amendments of 1983 Act]:
	[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 19, line 17, at end insert (", or to remain,").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Dholakia: moved Amendment No. 39A:
	Page 19, line 23, leave out ("or mental hospitals (within the meaning of section 7 above)").

Lord Dholakia: I hope that I shall have as much success with Amendment No. 39A as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, had with the previous one. Paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 1 is concerned with the preparation of electoral registers. It replaces Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and creates a new Section 10A. Under that new section, subsections (1) and (2) require the registration officer to carry out an annual canvass by reference to residence on 15th October to establish who in his area is entitled to be registered.
	My problem is that the canvass would not include mental hospitals, penal institutions or those registered by means of a declaration of a local connection. For that reason, I propose the deletion from subsection (3)(a) of the words,
	"or mental hospitals (within the meaning of section 7 above)".
	This Bill removes the current bar on the use of a psychiatric hospital address for registration purposes and enables both voluntary and detained civil patients to register either at that address or another address outside the hospital with which they have a local connection. I welcome that as a major step forward in ensuring that people in psychiatric hospitals are able to exercise their right to vote. However, these rights will be meaningful only if those in hospitals are fully advised of their rights and steps are taken to ensure their proper inclusion on the register.
	As it stands, paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Bill excludes psychiatric hospitals from the duty on electoral registration officers to carry out an annual canvass of electors in their areas. Evidence of the operation of the current law indicates that without such a duty many of those in psychiatric hospitals who are entitled to register are likely to remain unregistered. The Representation of the People Act 1983 enables informal patients in psychiatric hospitals to register either at their home address or by means of a patient's declaration, for which an address outside the hospital is also required. Guidance on this matter was issued to health service staff.
	However, there is a problem. Between 1987 and 1990 MIND carried out a survey of patients in psychiatric hospitals in the north-west which demonstrated that those who completed electoral registration forms were few and far between. The survey found both low numbers of patients registering to vote and significant variations between hospitals. In 1990 only 8.3 per cent of patients in the region were registered to vote. This varied between 3.1 per cent at the lowest to 16 per cent at the highest. These variations could not be explained by differences in hospital populations: they reflected stark differences in staff practices.
	The survey found great variation in the way in which hospitals distributed the relevant forms to patients. In one hospital staff visited every ward and explained the implications of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to each patient. Other hospitals, however, did not distribute any forms on the grounds that,
	"the initiative should be taken by the patient".
	In those hospitals patients were effectively disenfranchised despite having the right in law to register. Patients received differing levels of support from staff in completing the different forms. Some made sure that patients understood the forms and helped those who were not literate to complete them; others felt that patients should complete them unaided.
	If the Government continue to rely on those in charge of the institutions to ensure that those entitled to register do so, a similar situation is likely to arise again. The amendment will ensure that all those who are entitled to register using the hospital address can do so. It will also ensure that there is consistent implementation of the Act across different institutions. Unless a clear legal duty is placed on someone to ensure that there is registration that will not happen. There is no reason to believe that the present situation of non-registration will not continue. To place responsibility on the EROs to see to it that patients who are eligible to register do so will ensure that the intentions of the Bill, which we welcome, are realised in practice. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: One of the most important purposes of this Bill is to make it easier for those who have traditionally been put at a disadvantage to register as electors. This includes the homeless, remand prisoners and mental patients. I know that these provisions have generally been widely welcomed. We understand the noble Lord's concern that the annual canvass which electoral registration officers are required to carry out will not include psychiatric hospitals, but we do not believe that this will result in those affected being under-registered, and I shall go on to explain why.
	Most electors are able to register only in respect of their residence, and it is therefore important that an annual canvass is carried out to ensure maximum registration levels. By contrast, mental patients will be able to register in one of three ways. They will be able to register at the address where they would otherwise be living (which will be covered by the appropriate canvass); they will be able to register by means of a declaration of local connection; or they will be able to register in respect of the institution where they are resident. The availability of the first two options means that relatively few patients are likely to register in respect of the hospitals. The local electoral registration officer is unlikely to know which patients have registered using the first two options. Therefore, if he were to carry out a canvass in the normal way it could lead to a great deal of double registration.
	The Department of Health intends to issue guidance to those in charge of mental institutions to make sure that they are aware of the new rules that govern electoral registration and that they can advise those resident in the institutions of their rights accordingly. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister for that response. However, that explanation still does not explain the kinds of discrepancies found in the survey. Perhaps it is possible for the Minister to consult mental health bodies in order to relay the concern and see whether something can be done. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 19, line 25, after ("above)") insert ("or other places at which persons to whom section 7A above applies may be detained").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 42 and 43:
	Page 19, line 41, leave out from ("shall") to second ("as") in line 43 and insert ("make such alterations in his registers as fall to be made in accordance with section 10A below").
	Page 19, line 44, at end insert--
	("( ) In this section "residence" means residence for the purposes of section 4 above.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 44:
	Page 19, leave out lines 45 to 50.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Although the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, intends to substitute other words for this amendment, it is probably for the convenience of both myself and the Government if I formally move Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We dealt with the issue in an earlier debate. I believe that we were the odd couple on this, and I hope that we continue to be so. The words are much the same.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:
	Page 20, line 14, at end insert ("in respect of that address").
	Page 20, leave out lines 28 to 35 and insert--
	("(5) Where the name of a person ("the elector") is duly entered in a register in respect of any address, the elector is entitled to remain registered in the register in respect of that address until such time as the registration officer concerned--
	(a) determines, on the conclusion of a canvass under section 10 above, that the elector was not resident at that address on the 15th October in question, or that because--
	(i) the form mentioned in section 10(4) above was not returned in respect of that address, or
	(ii) for any other reason, insufficient information was obtained as to whether the elector was resident at that address on that date,
	the registration officer is unable to satisfy himself that the elector was then so resident at that address, or
	(b) determines, in any prescribed circumstances, that the elector has ceased to be resident at that address or has otherwise ceased to satisfy the conditions for registration set out in section 4 above.
	(6) Where the entitlement of a person to remain registered in a register in respect of any address terminates by virtue of subsection (5) above, the registration officer concerned shall remove that person's entry from the register once the officer has satisfied any prescribed requirements applying in relation to the removal of that entry.
	(7) Subsection (6) above does not apply if, or to the extent that, regulations so provide in relation to any prescribed circumstances; and regulations may, in particular, authorise a registration officer to retain entries in his registers for the prescribed period if he thinks fit in cases where the form mentioned in section 10(4) above has not been returned in respect of any address.
	(8) Nothing in subsection (5) or (6) applies in relation to the registration of persons in pursuance of--
	(a) applications for registration made by virtue of section 7(2) or 7A(2) above; or
	(b) declarations falling within section 10(3)(b) above.
	(9) In this section--
	"determines" means determines in accordance with regulations;
	"resident" means resident for the purposes of section 4 above.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 48:
	Page 20, line 47, leave out ("(subject to any regulations under section 10(7) above)").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 49:
	Page 21, line 20, after ("13A") insert ("or 13B").

Lord Bach: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, in moving the amendment I speak also to the other amendments in the grouping.
	This group of amendments relates to the correcting of clerical errors which may have been made in the electoral register after the close of nominations at an election. This is an issue which was debated in the other place and these amendments respond to concerns that were expressed there. They also follow discussions which Home Office officials have had with officers of the Association of Electoral Administrators and SOLACE.
	We believe strongly that candidates and political parties need certainty about the electoral register that is to be used at an election. They need to know how many and which electors will be eligible to vote. Accordingly, in line with the existing practice, the Bill provides that no changes to an electoral register to be used at an election can take place after the closing date for nominations. The Government believe that Members of the Committee would agree that that is right.
	However, it does not seem right that a person should be denied the right to vote as a result of a clerical error made by electoral registration staff. Such errors are likely to come to light only in the course of the election probably because the voter realises that he has not received a poll card. There can be no one in the Committee today who has not experienced such an eventuality during the course of canvassing during an election, and the upset it causes to the voter when he realises that he is not registered. We therefore think it would be right to make an exception to the general rule.
	These amendments make it possible for an alteration to an electoral register to be made after the closing date for nominations at an election where the registration officer is satisfied--those are important words--that this is for the purpose of correcting a clerical error in the register. They also allow alteration to a register to be made during an election period following a decision of the courts. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: I have no objection in principle to the amendment, but I have one query.
	In a number of places new Section 13B refers to something happening before the date of the poll. Under Clauses 10 and 11 it will be possible to have polls over more than one day. Should not the provision refer to "the date of the poll", or "the first day of the poll" if it takes place over more than one day?

Lord Bach: That may be a good point. I shall consider it and, if necessary, answer the noble Lord's point on Report.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 50:
	Page 21, line 20, at end insert--
	("( ) On publication or alteration to the register, any person registered within a borough or district shall have the right to make a challenge to any inclusion, alteration or omission to the said register; and regulations shall apply the provisions of section 56 in respect of any such challenge.").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The objective of the amendment is to make clear on the face of the Bill that the present method of challenging the electoral register is to continue in the way currently carried out on the publication of draft registers. Members of the Committee will remember that I explained that one of the major differences between the old and the new systems will be that we shall not have draft registers. We shall have a register on 1st December. That will be "the big bang". Then monthly (except for one or two months) a supplementary register will show the names added to or deleted from the register.
	Members of the Committee who have been involved with elections will know that the only point at which challenges can be made to the inclusion of a name on a register is when the draft register is published. However, with a rolling register the position changes dramatically. I believe that with a rolling register we should ensure that we keep the existing system for challenges. That provision should be on the face of the Bill. My amendment would mean that someone could challenge the inclusion, alteration or omission of someone from the register on 1st January, 1st February and so on. When the supplementary roll is published, political parties and individuals could check whether they are included in or omitted from the list.
	It would be useful to have clarification on how the Government envisage challenges to work under the new arrangement. While my amendment may not contain the exact words required, the Government may consider it sensible to put on the face of the Bill or in a schedule provision for challenges as the register rolls on. I beg to move.

Lord Norton of Louth: My noble friend's amendment goes to the heart of the reason for a published register. In considering the history of electoral registers in this country, he raises a fundamental point. We did not have an electoral register in this country before 1832; there was seen to be no need. It was only as a consequence of the 1832 Reform Act that the need arose because of the number of electors. Because of the inefficiency by which it was compiled and because the qualifications for the franchise were extremely complex, it was necessary to publish the register. Access was required so that people could challenge omissions from or entries in the register. That goes to the heart of the reason that we have an electoral register in this country.
	I shall return later to a related point about why we continue to publish the register. It may be less necessary given the current method of data collection. However, so long as we continue to publish a register, the rationale for it must be access so that people can check and challenge. Therefore it is important that such a provision is on the face of the Bill, and I support my noble friend's amendment.
	In responding, it would be useful if the Minister is able to give us figures of the extent to which challenges to the register have taken place. It is relevant in the context of my noble friend's amendment. It is also relevant to a point that I shall raise later. I have pleasure in supporting my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Goodhart: I, too, support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, made some telling points as to why the provision should be on the face of the Bill. I await with interest the Minister's reply.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have listened with interest to the argument that the provision should be on the face of the Bill. I shall give that further consideration. I am not sure that I can answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, about the number of challenges. No doubt challenges take place, and rightly so. I shall have to write to him on that point after we have undertaken some research. We may need to carry out a survey with the registration officers. I am sure that he appreciates that that will take some time.
	Our position on this is quite simple: we do not believe that this provision is entirely necessary. If your Lordships look at line 15 of page 20, you will see that it says:
	"A registration officer shall also determine all objections to a person's registration made in accordance with the prescribed requirements by another person whose name appears on the register in question".
	It is therefore quite clear that any registered elector in the area concerned can object to any entry in the register. I am sure that in the vast majority of cases the registration officer will be able to resolve the matter locally. Should he be unable to do so, Section 56 allows for the matter to go before the courts. From time to time, people have used and will continue to use that facility. I hope that that is reasonably reassuring to the Committee, and I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful for the support that I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. I am presently trying quickly to read the paragraph to which the Minister has referred. As I see the words "15th October" above it, I presume that this is for more than the main update, the big bang, and that it is in fact for all the updates that take place throughout the year. The Minister has been helpful in this respect, and we shall have to study what he has said, relating it to Schedule 1, page 20, to ensure that it does not refer to the big bang but to the monthly updates. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 53:
	Page 21, line 29, leave out from ("made") to first ("that") in line 32 and insert ("by any person in accordance with the prescribed requirements, determines").
	Page 21, leave out lines 34 to 39 and insert--
	("( ) is required, by virtue of any provision of this Part of this Act, to remove a person's entry from the register;").
	Page 21, line 44, leave out ("becomes satisfied") and insert ("determines").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 54:
	Page 21, line 45, at end insert--
	("( ) Each registration officer shall each month, or seven days before any poll, contact every registrar of births, marriages and deaths covering the area for which he is responsible in order to ascertain the names and addresses of those persons deceased within the previous month and the registration officer shall remove such deceased persons from the register within three working days of ascertaining this information.").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 55. This takes us back to the issue of the accuracy of the register. Amendment No. 54 is not concerned with adding names to the register, but, I regret to say, with deleting them. Amendment No. 55 is a little different. It could deal either with people who are not on the register and who perhaps should be on it, or with people who are on the register and who the electoral registration officer has reason to believe should no longer be on it.
	I am trying to standardise the principles of registration across the whole country. Although it is not a direct quotation, my recollection is that the Minister said in as many words that the ERO should use all the sources of information that he can make available to himself in order to ensure that the register is up to date. I do not believe that there is anything between us on that point. However, it seems to me that in the other place some doubt was cast on the registration officer contacting the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths to keep up to date with the deaths that had occurred in that area. I submit that this is not just about making sure that the register is accurate or about the problem of the denominator, as I described it earlier. I believe that it is also about the fact that people who have passed on ought to be taken off the register as quickly as possible.
	When I was involved in trying to be elected and then to keep a fairly marginal seat in the other place--it certainly turned out to be very marginal!--we had a small team of people making sure that we kept the register up to date with regard to people who had died, which is easy to do in a country area, where virtually all deaths are notified in the local newspapers. Our purpose in doing that was so that, come an election, we would not be sending communications to people who were dead. It is not a very pleasant matter for someone to have an election communication addressed to a late husband, a late wife or late parents. We all understand the problem and I am sure that all the political parties try not to do it. The last thing we want to do is to upset electors who may decide not to vote for us because they are annoyed about the fact that we have not been aware of a death.
	I am therefore trying to help all the political parties by suggesting that the registration officer should--I have provided a time--towards the end of each month be prepared at some stage to contact the registrar and ask for a list of the people who have died in the area over the past month, in which case he would be in a position to remove their names from the register and keep it very much up to date, prevent the political parties doing some work on registers and, perhaps more importantly, prevent us sending communications to people who have died in a way which would be fairly hurtful to the relatives who remain at their address. All of your Lordships who have been involved in elections will know exactly what I am seeking to do in this regard.
	Amendment No. 55 would underline in legislation that the electoral registration officer should canvass a part or all of the register if he thinks that he ought to and if he thinks that in that way he will gain more accurate information. In this case, it could be additions and deletions. We have never previously faced the sort of problem (except in October/November) that might arise where, for example, a new housing development becomes occupied by new people in the spring of the year. It seems to me that the electoral registration officer ought to decide at that point to inquire who they are, add them to the register, and, one hopes, remove their previous registration.
	We are in a whole new ball game with a rolling register. This is quite different from the situation that we have had in the past. In the sort of example that I have mentioned, it is often the case that over a few months in the spring and summer a lot of extra people can come into an area because of a new housing development. It seems to me sensible to give the electoral registration officer the power to take steps to ensure that those people are on the rolling register. I beg to move.

Baroness Fookes: I very warmly support my noble friend. These two amendments are very sensible. Quite apart from the issue of accuracy, I endorse what my noble friend has said about the hurt and distress that can be caused when party workers inadvertently make contact with relatives and appear not to know about the death of someone very much loved by them. It causes considerable upset. Furthermore, my previous experience as a Member of Parliament has been that, in towns, this is very hit and miss. It is unlikely that one would know of a death. Whether or not party workers know about a death depends very much on the thoroughness of their canvassing. I therefore believe that there is every reason to allow the electoral registration officer to make inquiries about whether anyone has been registered as dead. As I understand it, that information is public. The registration of a death is not a private matter. Therefore, I can see no objection whatever to inquiries being made by one official of another, if indeed it is correct that the propriety of this was questioned in the other place.
	The other point is less pleasant. We know that there is always a possibility of someone impersonating another. This will be less likely if the information is brought very much up to date. For that reason also, it is important that information should be made available as quickly as possible.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to make a very short point in favour of this amendment. In the case of a rolling register, we have a new situation. It is not the old situation as it was. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will look at it in that light, without a backward glance to the previous position.

Lord Goodhart: I, too, support the amendment. Anyone who has canvassed as extensively as I have--and many have canvassed a good deal more so--know that it is embarrassing to the canvasser to knock on a door, meet an elderly woman and ask about her husband, only to be told that he died six months ago. Whether or not such incidents and the sending of leaflets lead to a loss of votes, they are painful for both the resident voters and the canvassers. Therefore, we support any reasonable steps that can be taken to ensure that people who have died are taken off the register as soon as possible.

Lord Jopling: I, too, am anxious to support the amendment for a reason that has not yet been mentioned. I was much taken with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, about the problem of impersonation and by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the distress that is often caused during an election campaign. I am sure that many Members of the Committee have experienced the problem of knocking on a door and being told that the person's spouse had recently died. It is most distressing to meet a widow or widower or a son or daughter who is clearly upset by having to explain that grandpa is no longer alive.
	However, the deceased may have been registered for a postal vote. I do not believe that I fought a general election--and I fought 10 in my time--without knocking on a door and being told, "Grandpa died some time ago, but we have got his postal vote behind the clock on the mantelpiece". You then have to tell them that there is no way that that vote can be used. However, I have often wondered whether people might be inclined to think that if they fill in the form no one will know. I have no evidence whatever that that happens, but it could. I imagine that it is almost impossible to trace and therefore it is important to keep the register as up to date as possible. The gist of my noble friend's proposal is therefore sensible. It will cause a little more trouble, but not much, and it is in everyone's interest to have an up-to-date register.

Lord McNally: My wife has stopped me eating strong cheese at night because it gives me bad dreams. There was a point today when I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, had eaten the political equivalent of that strong cheese because he seemed to be summoning up all kinds of hobgoblins to frighten us. We heard about New Age travellers moving into marginal seats; jet-setting hijackers carefully landing at the appropriate time to be put on the register; the standard Irish tinkers; and the nefarious students. They were all distorting the vote presumably in an anti-Conservative fashion. It is not paranoia; it is just that they have a lot of enemies!
	Interspersed with all the hobgoblins, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, jumped on every one of his hobbyhorses. At one stage I was thinking of going into the Prince's Chamber and opening a book on how many he would ride today. We had the euro; student fees in Scotland; the competence of the Greenock sheriff; the Faslane nuclear debates; the European Convention on Human Rights; and CND. And the list is still open if someone wants to place a bet. We also had the statutory genuflexion to the wonders and glories of the Thatcher years.
	It has been vintage Mackay today and I must say that when I saw the amendment I thought, "Oh, my God, we are now going to get the voting dead!", presumably all the deceased being firmly anti-Conservative. Therefore, I was reasonably surprised when I heard the reasoning behind the amendment and was sympathetic towards it. Anything that could prevent unnecessary upset to the recently bereaved is to be welcomed. However, can the Minister confirm that the Home Office and the study group which examined these matters found little evidence of the abuses from which the Conservative Front Bench have tried to save us from this afternoon? Will he confirm that he, like Members on these Benches, remains committed to a Bill which will try to encourage people to register and to vote rather than to find as many obstacles to that as possible?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his intervention. It was timely and brought a little lightheartedness to our considerations. I, too, had wondered how many more demons would emerge!
	I have sympathy with the amendments and believe that they were honourably expressed. It would be strange if it were otherwise, because I was last elected for a ward which had about 8,000 voters, three cemeteries and two crematoria--so there were more deceased former voters than live voters. However, the live voters were always charitable and always returned me to the council and leadership of that great authority. I was very grateful to them.
	The points which Members of the Committee made are well intentioned. Nothing can be worse than knocking on a door and asking for someone only to find that there has been a recent bereavement and having to offer instant casework in their terrible loss and sad tragedy. Everyone has great sympathy for such situations. Amendment No. 54 would require electoral registration officers to consult the local registrar of births, marriages and deaths with a view to removing the names of the deceased. Apart from the fact that people do not always conveniently die in the area in which they are registered, the amendment is unnecessary. Perhaps your Lordships will turn to paragraph 23(3) of Schedule 1--it is at line 20 on page 26. You will see that registration officers will in any event be able to inspect records kept by,
	"any local or public authority".
	That encompasses not just records which are publicly available, such as the local register of births, marriages and deaths, but also those to which they would not otherwise have access. For that reason, we believe that this issue is already covered. However, if any point has been missed here, I shall be happy to listen to further proposals to cover any other eventuality.

Lord Norton of Louth: I understand the distinction made by the Minister here. However, the Bill as drafted states that the registration officer "may" consult, whereas the amendment tabled by my noble friend states that he "shall" do so. That would ensure consistency where, in the Bill as it stands, inconsistencies could arise. Registration officers may not use the powers available to them.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Norton, has made a useful intervention. The clear intention behind the drafting of the Bill is that it is the Government's expectation that electoral registration officers would regularly access the relevant data. Indeed, I believe that is already done in all authorities where good practice is evident. Most local authorities are extremely good about carrying out these functions.
	I shall now turn to Amendment No. 55. It addresses the issue of the accuracy of the register and returns us to an important issue. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, wishes to insert a provision allowing registration officers to carry out an enquiry or canvass at any time of the year. In principle, I feel that that would be unobjectionable. However, I question how realistic that might be in practice. Registration officers already find it difficult, costly and labour intensive to carry out even a single whole-town, whole-community or whole-area registration in any given year. I doubt very much whether they would have the resources or even the inclination to undertake a second canvass of the kind envisaged by the noble Lord, desirable though that may be.
	Perhaps Members of the Opposition can tell the Committee whether, if they were in government, they would increase the grants provided to local authorities to pay for such exercises. I believe that considerable costs would attach to this proposal. On balance, the Government believe that the registration provisions in the Bill are about right and I hope that the noble Lord will see the wisdom of that opinion. We think that the system works well as it is and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
	Finally, I should like to respond to a point made a little earlier by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Throughout our considerations and deliberations in this field, we have not detected any significant amount of abuse or fraud. I made that point earlier and I feel that I should repeat it now. When the working party examined these matters, the issue of fraud hardly arose. By and large, registers are well put together; generally the dead do not vote--though perhaps some would have liked to have done so. I believe that the balance of these provisions is right and does not overly burden local services. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the provision as it stands.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response and I thank all other noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. In particular, I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, kept count of the number of issues I could get in during my contribution. Perhaps we could come to an arrangement over the book he is running; I could then give him a suitable number.
	Perhaps I can say to the noble Lord that I had not thought about dead people voting, although I understand that that was a traditional problem in the north of Ireland until steps were taken to prevent it. I encountered the problem with a constituent--a supporter--who tended to telephone me on a Sunday evening to give me a list of all those who had died in the previous week. He was totally convinced that they were all Conservatives. Occasionally I had to point out to him that some others who had died during the previous week were most certainly not Conservatives. That is my experience of the issue.
	Perhaps I may turn first to Amendment No. 55. I take the point made by the Minister about expense. However, with respect, he could have given a little more information on the question of modern housing developments where an influx of people can make significant alterations to the register. There is a difference between that kind of circumstance and merely tidying up the register for no apparent reason.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I return to the point I made about good practice. It is the Government's expectation that--as in my own local authority area--when a new housing development is built, electoral registration officers will conduct a canvass to see whether those new residents are entitled to be included on the register. With the new rolling register that will of course be extremely important. Perhaps this is a point that might best be dealt with in guidance. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That would satisfy me and I am pleased to hear the noble Lord make the point. If an appropriate form of words could be devised for guidance and for inclusion in Home Office circulars, then that would be a step forward.
	As regards Amendment No. 54, it was interesting that the Minister drew the attention of the Committee to the schedule set out on page 26 of the Bill which provides that the registration officer "may" consult with local or public authorities. Obviously that would include the registrar of births, deaths and marriages. However, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth referred to a problem here; namely, that "may" means that some EROs will consult and some will not. My amendment seeks to standardise the procedure throughout the country and I still feel that that would be a useful step.
	Perhaps, in the spirit of conciliation, co-operation and agreement that we have enjoyed over the past few minutes, the noble Lord and the department could consider putting in a form of words to cover use of the registry of births, deaths and marriages in guidance or circulars sent out to electoral registration officers. In that way, we would avoid the position where, in one area the exercise is carried out perfectly adequately while in another area it is not done at all.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord has made a reasonable point, following on the comments of his noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. It costs me nothing to take this matter away to see whether, by perfecting the wording, we might come up with a form of words that would satisfy all sides.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 56 to 60:
	Page 22, line 1, leave out ("subsection (4)") and insert ("section 13B(1)").
	Page 22, leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert--
	("( ) Subsection (2) above also does not require a registration officer to issue a notice under that subsection in a case where section 13B(3) below requires him to issue a notice under that provision.").
	Page 22, line 25, at end insert ("and section 13B below").
	Page 22, line 26, at beginning insert ("For the purposes of subsection (1) above "determines" means determines in accordance with regulations; and").
	Page 22, line 28, at end insert--
	(""Alteration of registers: pending elections.
	13B.--(1) An alteration in a published version of a register of electors which takes effect under section 13A(2) above after the final nomination day in the case of an election to which this section applies shall not have effect for the purposes of that election unless the alteration--
	(a) is made in consequence of a decision or determination falling within section 13A(1)(d) or (e) above; and
	(b) takes effect on or before the fifth day before the date of the poll.
	(2) Subsection (3) below applies where--
	(a) at any time before the appropriate publication date in the case of an election to which this section applies, section 13A above applies to a registration officer, by virtue of subsection (1) of that section, in connection with a decision or determination--
	(i) falling within subsection (1)(d) or (e) of that section, and
	(ii) in consequence of which a person's name falls to be entered in (or removed from) the register in respect of an address in the relevant election area; and
	(b) no alteration made in consequence of that decision or determination--
	(i) has already taken effect, or
	(ii) is due to take effect,
	under subsection (2) of that section on or before the fifth day before the date of the poll.
	(3) In such a case the registration officer shall issue, in the prescribed manner, a notice specifying the appropriate alteration in the register; and--
	(a) the notice shall be so issued by him on the appropriate publication date; and
	(b) the alteration shall take effect as from the beginning of that day.
	(4) This section applies to the following elections--
	(a) parliamentary elections,
	(b) elections to the European Parliament,
	(c) elections to the Scottish Parliament,
	(d) elections to the National Assembly for Wales,
	(e) elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and
	(f) local government elections in England, Wales or Scotland.
	(5) In this section--
	"the appropriate publication date", in relation to a registration officer and an election to which this section applies, means either the sixth or the fifth day before the date of the poll, as the registration officer may determine;
	"the final nomination day", in relation to such an election, means the last day on which nomination papers may be delivered to the returning officer for the purposes of the election;
	"the relevant election area", in relation to a registration officer and such an election, means--
	(a) the area for which the registration officer acts, or
	(b) if the election is held in only part of that area, the part of that area in question.
	(6) Section 119 below shall apply for the purposes of this section as if--
	(a) it were contained in Part II of this Act; and
	(b) each of the days referred to in this section were the day on which anything is required or permitted to be done by or in pursuance of that Part of this Act." ").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 61:
	Page 22, line 28, at end insert--
	("Accountability of registration officers to Electoral Commission.
	13B. Electoral registration officers shall be accountable to the Electoral Commission in relation to the compilation, production and accuracy of the electoral register.").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment looks forward to the next Bill that will come to your Lordships' House in due course. It is likely that that is the answer I shall receive from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and perhaps I shall table the amendment again at that point. The amendment simply states that we should take account of the fact that an electoral commission will be brought forward shortly, which I very much welcome. However, at present all the work of electoral registration officers is governed by primary legislation, Home Office guidance and, indeed, by council and local authority pressures of various kinds.
	The electoral commission, once it is established, would provide a focal point for establishing the minimum standards required for electoral registration; standards that would be free from political influences of any kind. It could also provide an authority to which complaints might be addressed. I certainly hope that the commission, once it is set up, will be one whose judgment will command respect and for that reason I feel that that body should be given some of the powers currently held by the Home Office, local authorities and others. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord has anticipated part of my response to his amendment. However, he has done the Committee a favour by raising an important issue.
	Although this Bill does not refer to the electoral commission, noble Lords will be aware that soon we shall have a piece of legislation to create just such a body. The question of the relationship between the commission and local electoral officials is important. That is why the matter was specifically addressed in the Government's White Paper, The Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom. The Government's view is set out in that document. I believe that it may be helpful if I quote reasonably extensively from it to remind the Committee exactly what we said:
	"In some but not all ... countries which have Electoral Commissions, voter registration and the actual administration of elections are in the hands of the Commission. This might be a natural model to adopt if starting from scratch. But the current arrangements command public confidence. A change-over would be a very large legislative and administrative project, at the expense of other priorities, and neither the Neill Committee nor any other authoritative body has suggested that it is necessary. The Government does not, therefore, propose to alter the present arrangement in [any such] far-reaching way ...
	We believe, however, that the Electoral Commission will quickly become the natural focal point for the provision of guidance to electoral administrators and for promoting best practice in how they discharge their statutory duties. The Electoral Commission, for its part, may be expected to look to the cumulative knowledge and expertise of registration and returning officers to inform its reviews of electoral law and practice. By this two-way process the Government anticipates that the Commission will, as the Neill Committee envisaged, develop a close working relationship with the electoral administrators which will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness with which our elections are conducted".
	That remains our view. It is an important development. It exists in other countries. The relationship will no doubt evolve and lines of accountability will develop over time. However, at the moment we are building on an existing and proven system. We believe that we can place our confidence and trust in that. I hope that the noble Lord will take some comfort from the close relationship which we see developing between the Commission and local electoral officials. In the meantime, given that this matter will be "coming along later", as it were, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that I can tick that off in the box of "a mildly encouraging reply". Perhaps we shall come to the issue again when the next Bill relating to the electoral commission is debated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 62:
	Page 22, line 42, leave out from ("Where") to ("to") in line 43 and insert ("the entitlement of such a person").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 69:
	Page 23, line 29, at end insert--
	("( ) Omit subsections (1) and (2).").
	Page 23, line 30, at beginning insert ("In subsection (5),").
	Page 23, line 32, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (5) above").
	Page 23, line 44, leave out ("any such special lists or records,") and insert ("the place and manner of its publication, and
	(ii) the procedure to be followed in the preparation of any such special lists or records,").
	Page 24, line 9, leave out ("section 13A") and insert ("sections 13A and 13B").
	Page 24, line 14, leave out ("or 13A(2)") and insert (", 13A(2) or 13B(3)").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Football: Commercial Issues

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report of the Football Task Force on commercial issues.
	My Lords, I am grateful to those of your Lordships who have put down their names to speak in this short debate, which is about the primary report of the Football Task Force on commercial issues. I served as the task force's vice-chairman from its inception in July 1997 to 22nd December last year when the final report was delivered to the Minister for Sport.
	The task force was established as a direct response to widely shared concerns about where football was going and how it was treating its customers. Our terms of reference from the Government were to draw up plans to help to eliminate racism in football, improve disabled access, encourage greater supporter involvement in the running of clubs, encourage fairer ticketing and merchandising policies, develop the opportunities for players to act as good role models and reconcile the potential conflict between the needs of shareholders, players and supporters. Therefore, your Lordships may judge our effectiveness against those criteria. Taking our four reports together, did we achieve what we set out to do? My view is that on the whole we did, and much more effectively and with a greater degree of consensus than many thought possible at the outset.
	The consultative process which led to the drafting of each report was extensive and thorough. Its central element was the programme of away-days to the 10 major cities of England, during which we took evidence during the day and held well-attended public meetings during the evenings. What impressed all of us about those occasions was the strength of feeling displayed by the supporters. At times, that approached outrage over the way in which they were treated by those who control and in many cases own football.
	We took as our starting point the assumption that things were seriously wrong with the game and its governance. We learnt that football is quite different from any other consumer product or service. Supporter loyalty for a team lasts from the cradle to the grave. Perhaps the attachment that individuals have for their church is in the same category. However, one is not charged for a seat at a service and one certainly does not find worshippers buying replica cassocks from a church shop with the vicar's name on the back.
	The football product may be on offer in scores of outlets almost every day of the week and, theoretically, the consumer is free to choose which supplier's product he or she wishes to buy. However, in practice each club is a monopoly supplier. The Newcastle United supporter has no more than one first team Newcastle product to buy. One would be ill advised to suggest to the fans who are taking their club to court because they are being forced to move seats that they can always take their custom down the road to Sunderland, Hartlepool or Darlington.
	What are the issues about which supporters feel most strongly? The answer, overwhelmingly, is ticket prices. Sixty per cent said that they were not happy with the level of prices and half said that clubs had not got the pricing right. And no wonder! We compared prices which prevailed at the end of the 1980s, before the Hillsborough disaster, with now. The average for an adult non-concessionary ticket in 1988-89 was £4.03. Now, it is £17.42. That is a price increase of 331 per cent. Prices generally, as measured by the RPI over the same period, rose by just 54.8 per cent. It is hardly surprising that 70 per cent of those who have stopped going, or hardly ever go, say that the price is the main reason for their non-attendance. We encountered a range of other consumer complaints, including poor treatment of away fans, the availability and price of concessions, replica kits exploitation, and so on. Your Lordships will find the details in our report.
	We took a lot of evidence on what happens when clubs are floated on the Stock Exchange. We found that three-quarters of supporters believed that flotation was a recipe for conflict between their interests and those of shareholders. We also received allegations of financial impropriety--sometimes horrifying impropriety--and examples of how club grounds had been sold for private gain against the interests of the club and its supporters.
	Therefore, it was obvious that we had to include in our recommendations proposals for some form of independent regulation and a means for providing a consumer voice for disaffected fans. But could we do that and still manage to keep all the task force members on board? For a while it looked as though that might be possible. In August last year the football authorities produced a paper which contained proposals for,
	"the establishment of best practice guidance, the setting up of an independent scrutiny panel, performing a function not unlike that of the British Standards Institution or the Audit Commission, and the conduct of a health check/audit on the state of regulation, best practice and governance on a regular basis".
	Most of us on the task force took the view that that represented a huge step forward. It was very much in line with the new approach which the new Football Association chairman was bringing to his organisation. It involved major changes in corporate governance and action, at last, on the implementation of Sir John Smith's recommendations on dealing with financial impropriety.
	In my view, the independent members of the task force at least would have signed up to a report which gave the FA as the governing body a clear, defined role as the regulation enforcer. Accordingly, we produced a further draft of the commercial issues report which made the authorities' idea for an independent scrutiny panel the centrepiece of the new regulatory framework. But because in the end the football authorities were not prepared to make their scrutiny panel a permanent standing body, they decided that they had to produce their own report. That is why there was a split report.
	Their paper represents a substantial step forward compared with where they were three years ago. They accept the need for a customer charter and a code of practice. They propose some valuable safeguards to prevent the sale of grounds. They stick with their plan for an independent scrutiny panel which would review and assess the quality of the system of regulation, best practice and governance provided by the authorities.
	But the majority of us on the task force felt that more was needed. The main recommendation in our report was the establishment of a football audit commission to make football and the actions of football clubs publicly accountable. We also proposed the appointment of a supporters champion, who we christened the "ombudsfan", who would be able to investigate individual complaints and seek redress. The third element in our paper covered the code of conduct for clubs, including such matters as limits on price rises, fairer ticket distribution, supporter representation and the running of clubs and limits on clubs which go to the Stock Exchange.
	Both reports were considered by the All-Party Parliamentary Football Committee on 11th January. That committee supported the majority report and tabled an Early-Day Motion in another place which has so far attracted 97 signatures.
	So now it is over to the Government. Everyone concerned with the game awaits their response with great interest. I know that my noble friend may not be able to give us a definitive reply this evening, but I hope that he will allow me to suggest what may be a way forward. I do not believe that the gulf between the two sides is so wide that it cannot be bridged.
	I would be willing, for one, to give the new chairman and the new chief executive of the Football Association the opportunity to show that they can address the issues which the task force's investigations have uncovered. It should still be possible to establish an independent regulatory body at the FA provided that it is at arm's length from the FA. It does not matter whether it is called the football audit commission or the independent scrutiny panel provided it does the job properly. It must show that it would have dealt effectively with the scandals of recent years; that it would apply a strict fit and proper persons test to root out of the game people who should not hold any sort of office in it--the sort of thing that the Jockey Club does routinely in racing.
	The new body would also have to demonstrate that it is on the side of football's customers, the fans, who must be given the means to have their complaints properly considered and to seek redress. It must be a permanent standing body, not one that meets for just a couple of weeks a year and has no teeth.
	I am sure that the Government would much prefer effective, independent self-regulation of football to statutory control; and so indeed would I. But I must say to my noble friend that the Government have raised the expectations of supporters to such an extent by establishing the task force and involving them in it that they cannot afford to ignore the conclusions which we reached and the concerns which we uncovered. I am sure they will not.

Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for introducing this debate. Indeed, he asked me to speak in it. As your Lordships know, that is very dangerous. I have only six minutes because the debate is time-limited.
	First, in congratulating the noble Lord, I ask your Lordships and, indeed, the noble Lord to start at the beginning of this fascinating report. The chairman, who used to be a right honourable colleague down the Corridor, said that:
	"We resisted the temptation to go to see how much better the game is regulated in Hawaii, Bali and the Seychelles".
	Perhaps the vice-chairman will tell me where he and his colleagues did go. Did they go to "Baywatch" or Australia? We are not told. It may be that he will not have the time to do so.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, we went to exotic places like Birmingham, Sheffield and Newcastle. We were constrained by a budget given to us by the Government of about £120,000. So it was a very small budget on which we worked.

Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am delighted to have that cleared up.
	Secondly, for reasons which will become apparent, I add my congratulations to Ms Eleanor Oldroyd of Radio 5 Live which keeps me and millions of other supporters, whatever they are called, in touch with our football clubs around the world.
	I am delighted that on the working party was Mr Uriah Rennie, a referee. That is a class of sportsman with whom I have a great deal of sympathy since, seven years ago, I began to have the honour to become one of your Lordships' Deputy Chairmen.
	I come quickly to the recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred to the regulation and football audit committee. I should be interested to know whether the Government have any more thoughts on a more precise definition of its duties. I was interested in paragraphs 127 and 128 of the reply of the Football Association--what I call "football's reply".
	The financial compliance unit is dealt with in paragraph 89 of "football's reply". I wonder: are we to have more accountants, auditors and financial analysts than there are players and others?
	I declare my interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and other noble Lords will know, for 33 years now, I have been a great supporter, all round the world, of Everton Football Club. I am 200 miles from there now and 300 miles away when I am in Scotland. But thanks to the BBC World Service, when I have been in, for example, Seattle or elsewhere around the world, great happiness, or perhaps sometimes sadness, has been caused by Everton's results. I declare an interest also in that I am a shareholder.
	I hope that the noble Lord and the Minister who is to reply will glance at paragraph 4 of "football's reply" which sets the tone of the debate this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned ticket prices. It soon becomes clear which club he supports and it is a very fine club. But Everton is classified as being one of the large clubs, but not one of the superclubs. We do not know whether that will change. The top price for a ticket--and this is Merseyside--is £1,370 for the season for 20 games and an excellent meal is included in the price. It costs £940 without the meal. Season tickets cost from £330 down to £300. If you want to go to an individual game, it will cost from about £24 down to £20. For an old age pensioner, it costs £12; for a child, it costs £10. I do not necessarily believe that spectators (whatever their age) will go to every game.
	In the report, there is quite a considerable contribution on the subject of what I call "apparel". The rules of your Lordships' House forbid exhibits to be produced. I did not think it fit to wear the apparel but I have an aide memoire with me on the Bench this evening. I have a jersey which I bought for £5 in 1975 which has been skiing with me. It has seen many battles and has been wrapped round trees and so on. It has been beautifully repaired and is still wearable.
	I bought another shirt last year which cost £42. I paid an extra £5 to the Premier League for two numbers on the back. One must pay 75p per letter, if one wants one's name, such as "Lyell", on the back. I have not thought what it would cost to have "McIntosh of Haringey". It would cost Lord Grantchester, who is a director of Everton Football Club, £9. That is what it costs for the apparel and, apparently, that is what people are prepared to pay.
	I shall leave the question of finance, except to stress to your Lordships that one of the paragraphs in the report presented by the noble Lord and his committee (Chapter 2, paragraph 24) refers to players' wages. It says that that is completely unsustainable.
	I have mentioned Everton and I now turn to the non-financial side of things. As your Lordships will be aware, Everton is one of two major clubs in Liverpool, and on Merseyside. It has a tremendous record and large numbers of boys look up to the players. It has a very powerful "Everton in the Community" group. Last summer it visited Bideford and Barnstaple. It also has something called a "youth academy".
	Three gentlemen there--Mr Hall, Mr Harvey and Mr Harper--not the famous half-back line, although one was--are in charge of training and nurturing the careers of young men and young footballers. Last year, they were champions of England. Three of those boys passed their A-levels. One passed four and the others passed three A-levels. The noble Lord invited me to Selhurst Park several days ago when Everton was playing. Five of the team on that pitch came through the Everton ranks and through the Everton youth academy. That is the nature of the creature of which the noble Lord is speaking.
	I conclude quickly with a tale of two jerseys. One was worn by a young man, a boy, who was a mascot at Everton. He went out to a full house. Everton beat Manchester United. He was tucked up that night by his mother. He said, "It was a great night. We won". He died that night. The second relates to a young man called Craig Parry who was blown up by the IRA in Wigan. His father said that Craig's greatest wish to was to go to the grave in his Everton jersey. That is the nature of the emotion in paragraph 4 of "football's reply". I thank the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to mention it.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I have the feeling of being the only pagan in a church. I am not a great football fan. I have two comments regarding wearing a jersey with one's name on the back. First, as rugby players, we need slightly tougher jerseys than footballers; and, secondly, I have decided only ever to wear a jersey in which I have played. As my playing days are numbered, I have a nice stock, so I do not think I shall be stung heavily.
	Professional football in this country is felt by its fans, the people who watch it, to be owned by them. That almost comes through the pores of fans when talking about the game; it is their game. The report addresses that issue head-on. With the possible exception of rugby league, virtually no other sport creates that feeling. It is theirs because they go to watch it, support it and take it on board. They ensure that it is theirs.
	The problem referred to throughout the report is that people feel they are losing that link with football. They no longer feel that the game is theirs. I remember when everybody talked about football. Everybody went to see it. They stood on the terraces and there was a community feeling. I also remember people talking of the golden days of football when hundreds of thousands of people were in the grounds. I feel that perhaps in a large number of cases they went to watch the backs of each other's necks, but that is how it was.
	I also remember how most people who went to football games decided either to run away from the fighting or to join in. Professional football can certainly pat itself on the back for having dealt with the problem of violence or the perception of violence within football.
	The report refers to the fact that the fans feel that they are losing control of their game. Football has become incredibly fashionable. As such, it is in danger of being priced out of the market. Indeed, the marketing men had better beware. My own sport of rugby union flirted with the marketing men and got it horribly wrong. My old club, London Scottish, no longer exists. The marketing men decided that the sport should go in a certain direction but the money was not behind it. They tried to become soccer and have mass participation.
	There is a professional football team in every major town. If we do not get it right by attracting fans to watch the game the whole structure of football is in danger of being undermined because the necessary funding will not come through. With few exceptions, that will not be compensated for by revenue from broadcasting in any form. We may have to return to that discussion on another occasion. The money will not be there for junior sides who are dependent on high attendance at the gates.
	Several thousand people turning up to watch two teams play in the third best league is a remarkable cultural and marketing tradition which other sports would literally kill for. In this country, only football has that tradition.
	I shall not go into the detail of the report, which has already been mentioned. The report points to the fact that we must refer back to the people watching football. It also refers to getting people interested in playing the game. It is the one sport where the major participation level is on Sunday morning, presumably so that people are free to watch football on Saturday afternoons. We should not break with that practice. Unless we keep the fans on board so that they feel it is still their game and they must watch their club play, the link between watching and participating will break down. In many other sports it is much more important to play the game than to watch.
	I hope that the Government will support the report. Every single body is essentially conservative with a small "c" when it comes to change. I hope that the Government are prepared to stand with carrot and, more importantly, stick, and give the full support of their legal machine to the report.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is customary to congratulate the noble Lord who initiates a debate and I do so wholeheartedly. However, I congratulate him and his colleagues even more on what I consider to be an excellent report. It gives real hope for the future in circumstances where real change is needed.
	I declare the obvious interest that my commitment to football is that I have played in more matches that I have watched. I am not sure that I can define myself entirely as a fan, having been engaged for many years in what we called amateur football but what is now called, in a rather deprecating way, "junior football". For 20 years I was captain of the Parliamentary 11 in which the noble Lord, Lord McNally also played his part on important and significant occasions.
	My declaration of interest may perhaps help to counteract what may be the great danger for someone from my generation participating in a debate such as this--that of being somewhat suffused with nostalgia for times past. It is the case that I greatly enjoyed being on the terraces. Standing on the terraces, I watched all the matches in which England went on to win the World Cup at Wembley. I would not have sacrificed that position for a seat. However, we all learnt the lessons of Hillsborough and we all know why football had to be transformed in the wake of that disaster.
	Far from being nostalgic, I am appreciative of the modern game. We should recognise that it is faster, more skilful and a better spectacle than the game of the past. Perhaps I may say, against the usual pejorative lines that follow the numbers of yellow and red cards displayed over the weekend, that previously football was less disciplined than it is today. From time to time we have the scandals of trouble on the field. However, 30 or 40 years ago, in my view football was much less disciplined. Players were selected for their ability to take out opponents from the game and actually did so. Referees have better control over the game now than then.
	However, I resent the fact that football is drifting away from the very people who gave it sustenance and from which it derives its roots, as the report so accurately identifies. The vast majority of football grounds remain in working-class communities in our towns and cities. It is appalling that that which is part of the warp and weft working-class life is being ripped away by the simple fact that poorer people, particularly the unemployed, cannot afford to attend matches because of the exorbitant rise in football prices. The noble Lord gave us a clear illustration of how those prices have run amuck in comparison to almost any commodity one could think of that is set before the nation today.
	Opera has had to learn the responsibility of being opera for the nation and has a pricing policy at Covent Garden which gives opportunities to the less well-off. Football is a beneficiary of considerable public money. The Taylor report would never have been implemented if it had not been for the substantial sums of money from the Football Trust, which also derives support from government largesse. Public money has helped to transform the grounds. What is more, many of the grounds have been transformed by the direct input of fans who contribute to them. Sometimes they find that they are then frozen out of the very grounds they have contributed towards improving. I do not have the slightest doubt that it is absolutely essential to implement that aspect of the report which calls for a wider range of ticket prices and wants to make it possible for the less well-off in the community to go to matches.
	I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is right. We need control over the pricing of replica kits. I was absolutely shocked--I made the point repeatedly on the occasions I was able to do so when I represented Oldham in the other place--that the cost of replica kits escalated year on year. I watched families with limited resources, eager that their sons and, in many cases, their daughters, should identify with the town's club at a time when the club was enjoying rather better fortunes than today. However, the cost of doing so was prohibitively expensive. I have no doubt that we should seek regulation in that regard.
	I have not the slightest doubt that we need a stake for fans upon the board. Even if football management and directorship is represented--a major achievement of high standards in this country--there would still be a massive case for the representation of fans. In fact, as we all know, the management of our football clubs has often been deplorable. Almost the only gesture to the fans is to throw them the manager's head when they have berated him sufficiently by demonstrations on the pitch to show that they cannot tolerate the recent results--and at times that can be an extremely short-sighted perspective.
	Fans have the right and expectation to be taken into a position where they can make their representations to the board and feel part of the club. That is why I have hopes that this report, in its excellent precision, will impact upon the football authorities so that they put their house in order and introduce reforms. The Minister may not be too assertive on what the Government intend to do about the report in the short term, but I assure him that, as has already been said, we will be pressing the Government to act if within a short period of time the major proposals of the report are not implemented.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, on instigating this fascinating debate. I congratulate the Government on instigating the preparation of the report and the Football Task Force on coming up with an important document. As everybody has said--it is a conventional truism--football is not just a game; it is a huge exercise in national cementing. At a time when loyalties are hard to find and even harder to bestow, football remains an extraordinary repository of what is a basic human instinct.
	One of the most amusing paragraphs in the report is paragraph 4.5, where apparently a financial analyst from Salomon Brothers gasped that football fans are described as "irrationally loyal". I suppose it would need a financial analyst from Salomon Brothers to realise that loyalty is not rational; indeed, its very essence is irrationality. It has to do with tribal love and identification, all the things the City has long since forgotten.
	One point that worries me about the report and its conclusions is that they do not seem to have found a way of combining sport and business. The report is quite frank about the dilemma, but does not come to any sort of credible conclusion. Indeed, some of the conclusions appear to be a touch triumphalist.
	In paragraph 4.3 appears this sentence:
	"The survival of so many clubs and of such a strong tradition of support for them is a legacy of football's history. It is also a result of an ethos in the running of the clubs that they be sporting institutions and not mere vehicles for making money".
	Frankly, if they cease to be sporting institutions, if they lose the ethos that the task force correctly refers to as being at the centre of soccer, then the game will not survive in its present form.
	I come back to the ticket pricing issue, because that is the litmus test of whether or not clubs are capable of seeing that sporting ethos at the heart of their commercial affairs. The statistics are striking and I commend to your Lordships Section 5, which deals with them at length. When they did a detailed survey into pricing, it was found that 60 per cent of respondents--having asked thousands of people--said that they would like to take children to games of football but often could not because of the prices; six out of 10 were not happy; eight out of 10 unemployed people could not get to matches any more.
	We all surely agree that soccer is much more important than merely being the place to which the increasingly affluent go, yet the figures from the University of Leicester show that 60 per cent of the season ticket holders from Chelsea are people earning more than £30,000 a year. That is a striking statistic. Good luck to them, but let us somehow retain the prospect of poor and unemployed people attending games they desperately want to see. I suspect--I am not sure that the report contains any evidence for it, it is probably difficult to find--that it is the poorer members of the clubs, the people who live in the immediate locality, who provide the absolute loyalty that sees clubs through thick and thin and which sustains them at the rotten as well as the great times.
	I hope that we can look more frankly at this dilemma between commerciality and ethos, or sports. I want to say something in relation to ethos in terms of conduct. I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who has stood on so many terraces--I have stood on a few in my time--but I do not buy his picture that football today is as sporting as it was when he was a lad. Many of our greatest players went through their careers without ever being sent off. Some of them were never booked. We are talking of Stanley Matthews, Bobby Charlton and John Charles; they scarcely ever had a foul awarded against them. By contrast, at the Leeds and Tottenham Hotspur game at the weekend there was a brawl involving nearly every player. At the Chelsea and Wimbledon game there was a brawl involving a large number of players and staff. At the Manchester United and Newcastle game, the captain of Manchester United, Keane--one of the most over-paid players in the world--was sent off for the sixth time in his career. What kind of example is that? These are matters which it is not sensible to be cavalier about. We often hear sports commentators--in relation to rugby too, which is my first love--being dismissive of excessive violence, saying, "That is the sort of thing lads do". But they should not do that before the cameras which beam the games around the world when they are being paid the money they are. Perhaps it is because they are paid so much that they behave so badly.
	I conclude by saying that we must look to individuals and to individual clubs to put their house in order. We cannot ask the Government to solve this. The Government may be able to do some things, but it is basically down to the game itself. Let us not forget the small clubs, the amateur clubs. The professional clubs should be an example for them and enable them to have a better and easier life. I sometimes feel that they are not remotely interested in the seedbed of their own success. Let us make this once beautiful game a beautiful game again.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, understands that the time constraint prevents me from paying him the tribute which his contribution to soccer deserves, not only in this report, but also on his work for the Football Trust.
	David Mellor, the chairman of the Football Task Force, in the foreword of this report quotes the views of some of its members which go to the nub of our debate. They believe that soccer is,
	"a modern, highly professional, big-money game, the demands of which ... have far outgrown the present regulatory machinery".
	The most significant statistic in the report is that there are 54,000 clubs affiliated to the FA. That is a glorious pyramid topped at the moment by the wealth, glamour and power of Manchester United, but supported by the love of the game are thousands of amateur officials and players and millions of fans.
	It is interesting to read in the report how the founding fathers of the game foresaw some of our present problems and devised rules to protect it from narrow-based exploitation. The removal of earlier protections left the game with two very clear problems. First, how do we keep football at the highest level interesting and competitive if wealth and playing skills are concentrated in a handful of clubs? Secondly, how do we ensure that a decent proportion of the immense wealth coming into football at the top is used for the long-term benefit of the game at all levels? The 5 per cent levy proposed on new television contracts is a gesture in the right direction; but more may need to be done, either voluntarily or by compulsion, to shake money down the pyramid if the game is not to wither at its roots.
	Without some of the remedial action outlined in this report, and other measures, we will face a situation where the interests of fans are constantly put second to the protecting of shareholder value; where clubs like Manchester United become increasingly like the Harlem Globe Trotters--circling the world chasing the fast buck at the expense of home fans and domestic competition; and where the game itself and its competitions become increasingly the fodder feeding the voracious appetite of television.
	I was interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Addington said about marketing men. One of the most potent advertising slogans of all time was, "We always remember you have a choice". How many of today's fans were first taken to watch football by their parents? Break that link by greed or insensitivity and you lose not just today's fans but also those of tomorrow. That is why those involved in football, from club chairman to bootboys, need to realise that the future depends on their ability to give as well as to take.
	It is true that I spent the twilight of my undistinguished career under the captaincy of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, in the House of Commons' team. But I am afraid that I agree with my noble friend Lord Phillips on the question of player discipline. For example, the current behaviour of some Manchester United players is, quite frankly, a disgrace. A national Sunday newspaper said this yesterday:
	"Sir Alex Ferguson's players are like volcanoes permanently on the verge of eruption".
	That is not good enough from football's premier club. If Sir Alex Ferguson is unwilling to control them, perhaps a three-point deduction would instil some discipline into Roy Keane or Jaap Stam next time they shove their faces into that of the referee and try to intimidate an official. Do they not realise that this behaviour is replicated in parks and playgrounds, along with the petty fouling and cheating that is the example set by too many in the modern game?
	So players should set an example, as should the clubs, thereby making a far greater contribution to dealing with the social problems of the communities that nurture them. As has been said, many of our big clubs are located within areas of high crime, social exclusion, racial tension and social deprivation. Yet the contributions that the clubs make to addressing these problems is often all too minimal. For their part, the Government's priorities should be in ensuring that football at all levels is run with probity and accountability; and that the game's wealth is more evenly distributed.
	The Government should also use this report as a basis for a new charter for football, which includes root and branch reform of the Football Association. Today I met the new chief executive, Adam Crozier, who, by his very youth, will look very out of place in the FA Council. I believe that the proposed code of practice and the audit commission are the right way ahead, as well as the "ombudsfan". In fact, I should like to see a football commissioner, along the lines of the American model, to get to grips with some of these problems. I should also like to see redistributive levies on transfer fees and broadcasting deals.
	The task force has done a good job in identifying priorities and in suggesting remedies. We now look to government and the football authorities to respond in a way which will release the immense potential for good that is in football, and save it from those who either lack the capacity to manage the modern game or whose sense of vision and social responsibility ends on the bottom line of a balance sheet.
	Perhaps I may conclude by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that my father was born in Old Swan in Liverpool. He brought me up to believe that Liverpool had two great football clubs: Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for giving us the opportunity to have this short debate. I am certainly aware of the high regard in which he is held in the football world. I congratulate him on the valuable part that he has played both in the production of the report and in all the work that has gone into it.
	It is, of course, disappointing to all of us that it was not possible for agreement to be reached on just one report. I look forward to hearing from the Minister which report is to be endorsed by the Government. Alternatively, will there be a pick-and-mix approach, or will the whole thing will be kicked into touch? I certainly hope not in respect of the last option. The reports are the last in a series produced by the task force. As noble Lords have said, the task force has addressed the most fraught area of the remit; namely, the commercial and regulatory issues, which are vital for us to resolve if the game is to have a healthy future.
	Four weeks ago I saw the game at the hard end of it. I went to watch my own home town of Woking play in the third round of the FA Trophy. I thank its director of football, Phil Ledger, for making me feel so welcome. I also declare an interest because I had a free ticket. The club usually attracts about 2,500 supporters a week and is the source of local pride. On that occasion, I am pleased to say that Woking won 4:2. I shall say nothing about last Saturday; it is perhaps better forgotten.
	Woking plays in the Nationwide Conference. When I watched the team play, I saw at first hand the financial problems faced by clubs that do not have access to the vast sums available to some League clubs and some League players. Therefore, when I came to read the reports, I naturally did so with the needs and views of the smaller clubs very much at the forefront of my mind.
	The reports sweep across the business world of football from the macro--the issues of principle, duty and responsibility--to the micro. My noble friend Lord Lyell referred to one such issue; namely, kit. I believe that I shall remember for many a year the picture of my noble friend careering down a ski slope with his Everton jumper firmly in place. However, as is often the case with my noble friend, he has, by making a gentle joke, focused our attention on a tough issue and one that is very important to supporters of the game. I refer to the cost of replica kits.
	The big question for the Government must surely be: do they accept the recommendation in the first report that there should be a football audit commission--a permanent standing body--and that if in a period of two years sufficient progress has not been made to establish such a commission, the Government should then appoint a regulator by legislation to implement a statutory code of practice for football? Alternatively, do the Government prefer the model proposed in the second report; namely, an independent scrutiny panel, the background of which was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, which would not be a standing body or established by legislation? Can the Minister tell the House tonight what progress has been made in the development of this scrutiny panel? Further, is he satisfied that such a panel could provide an independent and impartial forum for football bodies to present their case for fair treatment?
	I welcome the recognition on page 9 of the first report that,
	"the economic gap between large and small professional clubs and between the leagues in the national structure is growing".
	But the question should surely be: what do the Government think should be done about the situation? Indeed, do the Government have a role to play in that process? Do the Government feel that the vast resources flowing into the game are being distributed in an equitable and fair manner?
	In their joint report to the task force, the FA, the Premier League and the Football League said that they were making extensive efforts to "ensure consistency" and to "promote best practice". Are the Government confident that these principles are being applied at all levels of the game? I make particular reference to the fact that promotion between the Nationwide Conference and the Football League remains at one place compared to three promotion places at other levels of the game--indeed, four places between Second and Third Division League clubs. I also draw attention to the fact that the criteria for operating academies for young players excludes clubs in the Conference and that under football rules Conference clubs cannot sign schoolboys aged between 9 to 15, although the League and the Premier League can do so.
	I welcome the fact that there is a recognition in both reports of the need for a rigorous code of practice to govern the way clubs behave towards their fans. However, do the Government agree with the first report that there should be a written code of practice for the game both on and off the field? One begins to wonder where is the boundary between a footballer's professional and private life.
	The overarching questions for the Government in all of this must be: do they accept the premise on which report No. 1 is based? The report states at page 2,
	"that football--and indeed sport--is different from other business sectors".
	Further, how far should, or could, any government intervene in determining the management and commercial operation of businesses that promote sport? I believe that their answers to these questions have ramifications beyond the world of football, large and important though it is to all noble Lords.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner for raising this issue tonight and to all who have taken part in the debate. I can well understand why my noble friend, who is one of the task force's distinguished members--he is distinguished also in the wider football world--is particularly anxious to see the Government's response to the task force's final report. I am afraid that I must disappoint him. I am sure he will be aware that I shall not give the Government's response tonight. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who as usual fired off a barrage of questions at me, will know that I shall not even respond as precisely as she would wish to the questions which are the Government's concern. Many of the issues she raised are matters not for the Government but for the world of football itself.
	However, this debate will form an input to the Government's consideration of the task force's report and will certainly be taken seriously by them. I am happy to set out the issues which are being considered by the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sport as they frame their response to the report.
	Before I do that, however, I must emphasise my congratulations to my noble friend and his fellow task force members. He has eloquently described their work over the past two-and-a-half years, not just on this report but also on previous reports on racism, disabled access and the sport's role in the community. Those earlier reports were notable for their sound analysis and the common sense of their conclusions and recommendations. The truth of that is confirmed by the speed with which the football authorities have implemented many of the proposals which they made. As a direct result of the task force's endeavours, football now has the equipment necessary to fight the cancer of racism. It has a unified policy on welcoming disabled people to stadia and providing them with the best in facilities, and it has a new will to work in partnership with local communities. Those achievements are substantial and we should applaud them.
	The recommendations of the previous reports were, of course, unanimous. That cannot be said of the task force's latest report. We have two reports, one from a majority of the task force members and a minority report written by the FA, the FA Premier League and the Nationwide League. It would be easy to disregard the whole exercise for that reason, but that would be misguided. The report reflects genuine public concern about the way football is run in this country and the Government have no intention of using the lack of consensus as an excuse to avoid addressing that concern.
	David Mellor rounded off his introduction to the report by quoting Milton. He could with equal profit have turned to Walt Whitman, who stated in Leaves of Grass,
	"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself; I am large; I contain multitudes".
	That is not meant as criticism. Whitman celebrated the diversity of human experience. In the same spirit we should celebrate the diversity of the people involved in the making of the task force's latest report. The members of the task force were drawn from, and indeed nominated by, all parts of football, from governing bodies to supporter groups. They took evidence from a wide range of organisations including clubs, administrators and representatives of other industries. As my noble friend has emphasised, they carried out extensive, although not scenic, tours of the country. Hundreds of fans took part in the research work on which the proposals of the final report were based.
	In view of that, the task force's achievement in simply agreeing on the scope of its proposals, if not on the proposals themselves, is an impressive one. That was no simple matter. Fans' detailed concerns cover a wide range of issues, from ticket prices--which have been much emphasised in the debate tonight--and merchandising (we have discussed strips) to the financial rectitude of clubs and the extent to which supporters are involved in decision-making. Their concerns reflect some of the huge changes that have taken place in football over the past two decades. It is now a big business but one which depends to a great extent on the decidedly non-commercial goodwill of its supporter base.
	The conundrum which football, in common with other major sports, is facing worldwide cannot be characterised in black and white terms. We are not just looking at a contradiction between the business ethos and the sporting spirit. The paradox runs deeper than that, as Bill Shankley nearly said, as regards life, death and football. Governing bodies must encourage investment in football at all levels. Without that, the sport withers at amateur and junior levels and the national team suffers. Attracting and retaining investment means ensuring that investors make a reasonable return, but authorities must recognise their responsibilities. Both the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, emphasised the importance of that.
	It is, of course, a good sign that the Premier League is committed to allocate 5 per cent of TV revenues to support grass roots football. The Government are discussing the distribution of that money with the league and with the Football Association. The point is well taken. However, that must be balanced with the sport's wider needs, its traditions and the need to ensure fair competition between clubs.
	Supporters have contradictory imperatives. They realise that a club's success at any level in the professional game takes a great deal of money. Logically, the committed supporter would gladly accept rises in the prices of tickets and merchandise if these would demonstrably improve the team's chances of success. To a certain extent, that is already the case. But football supporters, like the rest of us, are generally rational beings, despite being described as tribal by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and indeed by the football authorities themselves in their report. They do not want to be exploited, especially if they feel that the exploiter is an institution to which they have been devoted in many cases since childhood. Therefore to characterise the split report as an analogy of a straightforward conflict between commerce and Corinthianism in modern football is a gross over-simplification.
	To the great credit of all involved, both the majority and the minority reports demonstrate an acute awareness of the complexity of the issues. Yes, we have been presented with two reports. However, in view of the difficulties of the task force's remit, the degree of consensus that it achieved is remarkable. Both minority and majority reports agree that supporters have valid grievances which must be addressed. I repeat my acknowledgement of what has been said in that regard, particularly with regard to ticket prices. Both reports agree on the need to set standards of customer service and financial rectitude; for supporters to have a bigger say on how the game is administered; and on the need for an accountable body to monitor improvements in those areas. The two proposals for meeting those objectives are very different and not just in matters of detail.
	As my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, the majority report calls for an independent football audit commission actively to monitor clubs' performances against a national code of practice. It would oversee a new system of auditing clubs and would have the power to impose financial or other penalties. The report also recommends the appointment of an "ombudsfan" who would investigate complaints from supporters and report to the football audit commission.
	The football authorities' proposed independent scrutiny panel would be appointed by the governing bodies themselves, although with additional independent members. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that I am not aware of any developments in setting up such a scrutiny panel, but we have yet to discuss the report with the football authorities.
	The panel's primary task would be a review of the current state of regulation in the sport. It would be supported by a permanent management board and by individual customer charters drawn up by clubs. The noble Baroness asks me to choose between the proposals. However, I hope that she will recognise that the right thing for us to do is to consider the proposals on their merits and not to make that consideration too hurried. The consideration must start--indeed has started--from what unites the two proposals. My noble friend Lord Faulkner recognised that when he talked about bridging the gulf between them.
	Any scheme, whether based on an external body or achieved through self-regulation, must command the support of all parts of the sport. However it is constituted and whatever it is called, a new body would have to work closely both with the present governing bodies and with supporters' associations. Without that widespread support it would lack both legitimacy and effective power.
	There are more practical considerations. Any new regulator must not impose burdensome costs on the sport. Of course supporters and governing bodies are entitled to expect high standards of customer service and financial rectitude from clubs. But we live in an imperfect world. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, many clubs outside the premier league have severe financial problems. Any new regulatory framework must take account of this without materially compromising its commitments to the agreed principles of the two reports. The key decision here for football concerns the form and powers of any new regulatory body.
	The report makes a number of other key recommendations. The Government have already taken forward one of these. We agree with the task force that supporters should be given every assistance in investing in clubs. The Secretary of State announced the principles of the SupportersDirect initiative on 1st October last year with the creation of the new unit to administer it on 29th January. In shadow form it is already offering support, advice and information to groups of supporters who wish to play a responsible role in their clubs by collectively owning shares. I am sure that SupportersDirect will play a key role in improving the future health of the football industry. I acknowledge that this is not the same as having fans on the board, an argument put by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, but it is certainly a related initiative.
	The task force was designed to achieve the future health of the football industry. It was never intended to function exclusively as the voice of either football supporters or of the governing bodies. The Government's response to the report, when it comes, will be proportionate to the wider public concern about the running of football. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that we shall not be kicking the report into touch.
	Many people both inside and outside football are concerned by what Hugh McIlvanney has described as,
	"The strange, disproportionate and often damaging role that a simple ball game has come to play in the lives of so many of our fellow citizens".
	McIlvanney wrote shortly after the Hillsborough tragedy, when football had rather more important considerations than commercialisation to address. Even so, he expressed a general truth with which I think even the most committed follower of the sport may agree after reflection.
	But I do not want to conclude on a downbeat note. The Government are extremely grateful to the task force. We are confident that much good will come from its final report. We have made the report widely available and, just as we are grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, we look forward to hearing the views of the public as part of the consultation process.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.36 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.33 to 8.36 p.m.]

Representation of the People Bill

House again in Committee on Schedule 1.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 70:
	Page 25, line 16, leave out ("for publication of notice of the election") and insert ("on which nomination papers nominating candidates at an election may be submitted").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendment is concerned with that part of Schedule 1 which discusses election addresses. I shall come to the main point about election addresses shortly. This is a simpler point and I suspect that the Government may be aware of the problem.
	As I read the Bill as it stands, the date on which registration closes and the last date for postage of electoral addresses do not seem to match. It seems logical that they should be the same. There is no point in the register closing--save, perhaps, for the special circumstances of a clerical error--after the date on which the Post Office demands from the political parties that their election addresses be sent to the Post Office. The two dates should relate to each other so that when the political parties come to send out their election addresses they are sent out to all the people on the valid register.
	I may be wrong in my interpretation of this part of the Bill--no doubt the Minister will tell me if I am--but those two matters should be in the correct order. The register should close, so to speak; the political parties should get the complete register; and they then have the opportunity to ensure that they have sent their election addresses to all those voting in the election. It should not be the other way round. It should not even be coincidental, because it would be rather difficult to deal with then, and it certainly should not be the wrong way round.
	I invite the Government to correct me if I am wrong. If I am not wrong, perhaps they can assure me that they will have a look at this issue before we come to Report stage. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Who am I to say that the noble Lord is wrong? I can understand why he has moved the amendment. The first point I should make is that for most purposes the key date in the election cycle is the closing date for nominations. Yet, as the proposal reads, the right to a free mail delivery would be related to the electorate as at the date for the publication of the notice of election, rather than the closing date for nominations. Members of the Committee may wonder what is the reason for that. The answer is quite simple. It has long been recognised that some candidates, in order to kick start their campaign--"to give it momentum" as it is described in the American presidential system--may want to send their election address out early, before the close of nominations.
	Section 91(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 specifically provides for that by allowing candidates to send out their freepost delivery before the publication of the statement of persons nominated--which is produced directly after the closing time for nominations--provided they can give the Post Office sufficient security. We did not want to remove that flexibility. However, if candidates are to continue to have the right to send out their freepost delivery before the closing date for nominations, for that purpose electors need to be defined by reference to the earlier date on which the notice for election is published. I trust that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Given all the complicated dates involved, the best I can do is to take away the amendment, talk to those perhaps more involved in elections than I now am and see what they have to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 71:
	Page 25, line 20, at end insert--
	:TITLE3:("Election Addresses: Greater London Authority Elections
	:TITLE3:GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY ELECTIONS; CANDIDATE'S RIGHT TO SEND ELECTION ADDRESSES POST FREE
	19A. After section 91 there shall be inserted--
	"91A.--(1) At an election for the Greater London Authority held under the provisions of the 1999 Act--
	(a) each individual candidate for Mayor of London;
	(b) each individual candidate for return as a constituency member of the Greater London Assembly,
	is entitled to send free of charge for postage either--
	(i) one un-addressed postal communication, containing matter relating to the election only not exceeding 60 grammes in weight, to each place in the Assembly constituency (in the case of an individual candidate for return as a constituency member) or (in the case of an individual candidate for Mayor of London) each place in the Assembly constituencies, which, in accordance with the Post Office Regulations 1987 (as applied and modified by subsection (5) below) constitutes a delivery point for the purposes of this subsection; or
	(ii) one such postal communication addressed to each elector.
	(2) Any such candidate is also, subject as mentioned in subsection (1) above, entitled to send free of any charge for postage to each person entered in the list of proxies for the appropriate election one such communication as mentioned in subsection (1) above for each appointment in respect of which that person is so entered.
	(3) A person shall not be deemed to be a candidate for Mayor of London or to be a candidate for return as a constituency member unless he is shown as standing nominated in the statement of persons nominated, but until publication of that statement any person who declares himself to be such a candidate shall be entitled to exercise the right of free postage conferred by this section if he gives such security as may be required by the Post Office for the payment of postage should he not be shown as standing nominated as mentioned above.
	(4) For the purposes of this section, "elector" means a person--
	(a) who is registered as a local government elector in an Assembly constituency for which the election is to be held in the register to be used at the election; or
	(b) who, pending the publication of that register appears in the electors' lists for such a register (as corrected by the registration officer) to be entitled to be so registered,
	and accordingly includes a person shown in the register or electors lists as below voting age if it appears from that register or those lists that he will be of voting age on the day fixed for the poll, but not otherwise.
	(5) The Post Office Regulations 1987 shall have effect in relation to an election for the Mayor of London and the London Assembly subject to the following modifications--
	(a) in regulation 1, the reference to "section 91 of the Representation of the People Act 1983" shall be construed as a reference to this section;
	(b) any reference to "constituency" shall, in relation to a candidate for return as a constituency member, be construed as a reference to an Assembly constituency, and, in relation to a candidate for return as Mayor of London, be construed as a reference to the Assembly constituencies.
	(6) If the area of the GLRO is situated in the area of more than one Head Postmaster, the controlling Head Postmaster for the purposes of the Post Office Regulations 1987 as applied by subsection (5) above shall be determined by the GLRO.
	(7) Any communication issued under the provisions of this section by a candidate for return as a constituency member standing as the candidate of a registered political party may refer to the candidates for return as London members submitted on that registered political party's party list.
	(8) For the purposes of this section--
	(a) "the 1999 Act" means the Greater London Authority Act 1999;
	(b) "Greater London Authority" means the body referred to in section 1 of the 1999 Act;
	(c) "Mayor of London" means the office referred to in section 2(1)(a) of the 1999 Act;
	(d) "London Assembly" means the Assembly referred to in section 2(1)(b) of the 1999 Act;
	(e) "constituency member" means a member of the London Assembly of the type referred to in section 2(2)(a) of the 1999 Act;
	(f) "London member" means a member of the London Assembly of the type referred to in section 2(2)(b) of the 1999 Act;
	(g) "Assembly constituency" has the same meaning as in section 2 of the 1999 Act;
	(h) "GLRO" means
	(i) in relation to the first ordinary election of the Greater London Authority, the person, or persons of the description, designated by order under section 3(4) of the 1999 Act as the returning officer at the elections of the Mayor of London and of the London members;
	(ii) in relation to any other election, the proper officer of the Greater London Authority (as defined in section 424(2) of the 1999 Act);
	(i) "registered political party" means a party registered under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998;
	(j) "party list" means a list submitted to the GLRO in accordance with paragraph 5 of Part II of Schedule 2 to the 1999 Act on behalf of a registered political party."").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It is fair to say that this is far more than a probing amendment. It is a serious amendment in which not only I am involved; I am joined by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and--I nearly said "my noble friend", but I meant the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with whom I have sparred on many occasions. On this occasion we are speaking on the same side. If I were the Government, I should be trembling in my shoes.
	The background to the amendment is of course that there are shortly to be elections in London for the mayor and the London assembly. They are significant elections; they will certainly encompass the largest electorate of any election below the level of the election to the United Kingdom Parliament. The constituencies involved are therefore extremely large. The mayor will have a mandate from an electorate in excess of 5 million. I am not entirely sure whether it is more or fewer--but it is certainly on a par with the electorate in Scotland. It is remarkably larger than the electorate in Wales or in Northern Ireland.
	The Government themselves have created that structure. The elections are extremely important. They will clearly give London a voice--that is what the Government said they wanted--and the mayor will be a significant figure. In addition to the mayor, there are to be elections to the assembly of a rather limited number of candidates: 14 constituencies in London will elect one each; and 10 top-ups, which is something we are now fairly used to in Scotland and Wales. There will be three groups: the mayor, who is self standing; the 14 constituency members; and the 10 top-ups, who will be related to the 14 constituency members via the d'Hondt formula. I shall not bore the Committee by reminding your Lordships about d'Hondt. I am sure that my previous lessons on the subject have all been well learnt.

Lord McNally: Can I add d'Hondt to the list?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is therefore a serious election. While the powers are certainly different, I suggest that it is on a par in democratic terms with the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They in themselves are of course different; the Scottish Executive has far more powers than the Welsh Executive, which in turn has more powers than the Northern Ireland Assembly. They are not all the same, which goes for London too.
	The mayor's responsibilities are reasonably limited, but he will be a voice for London. Knowing the way the system works, I suggest that he will be a voice on a range of issues, including those which do not come directly under his responsibility. If the Government doubt that, I invite them to take a look at what the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are already doing. They venture occasionally into areas that are not their direct responsibility, much to the annoyance of Dr John Reid, the Secretary of State for Scotland and even more to the annoyance of his deputy, Mr Brian Wilson.
	We are discussing important elections. I do not want to hear from the Minister that this is just another local government election. It clearly is not. The Government have created a structure entirely different from local authorities.
	The Government are not going to allow free post in London. That seems absolutely amazing. Free post is allowed at parliamentary elections. It was allowed at the elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. We allowed considerable free post, because we believe that it is right and proper that every candidate is able to send one communication to each elector, or each household--it rather depends how the candidate wants to play it--in an election of the importance of Parliament, of the Scottish Parliament, of the Welsh Assembly or of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I submit that it is equally important that the candidates for mayor and those for the seats in the London assembly have the same right. It seems amazing that free post has been given in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but not to the mayor with an electorate of 5 million-odd and to the 14 constituencies, which have electorates far greater than any other in this country.
	Without the free post it will be impossible for the candidates to reach all the electorate. It will certainly be grossly unfair to anyone who decides to stand in a constituency as an independent candidate without the backing of a party machine. I believe that the election expenses have been set reasonably high, but, frankly, I am told by the people who have carried out the calculation that if a political party had to pay for postage to the electorate, it would be exceeding the limit without doing anything else. The election expenses level will be swallowed up entirely if there is no free post and the parties are obliged to use the postal system.
	The reason we have a free post is that we believe it right that every properly nominated candidate should be able to send one communication to the elector. If the Bill is about involving the electorate in the elections--which is, after all, what we are continually told--then surely the one thing which will encourage electors to vote will be if they receive communications from the candidates standing for election.
	I look forward to the Minister's reply. At Second Reading I suggested to the House, slightly tongue-in-cheek, that it was a "Stop Ken" manoeuvre, designed to stop Ken whichever way it works. If Ken decides to stand as an independent because of the rigged ballot by the Labour Party for its candidate, he will be absolutely tied hand and foot if he cannot communicate with every elector. Frankly, he will probably manage to do it quite successfully via the media. Unless the Government propose a blanket ban on him appearing on radio and television, they may find their desires slightly frustrated.
	Even if he wins the Labour nomination, I suggested that they would then tell him that they did not have enough money to fight a campaign of the kind he wanted and that they could not possibly pay for all the postage because they had a major election to fight next year and he would have to go out into the highways and byways of London to try to persuade major donors to give him a good deal of money to carry out his own postal delivery. In that way, he would be stopped. Anyone--or, rather more specifically, the Conservative candidate--would be preferable to Mr Livingstone, and would therefore win; and that would be all right. Anything to stop "our Ken".
	I do not suppose that that is the reason. I cannot believe that Downing Street would be so Machiavellian as to try to use the refusal of a free postal service to stop Mr Livingstone. Can I? I am not sure. But what I do know is that it is an insult to the people of London who have been given the mayor with much trumpeting by the Government--my goodness, trumpeting from here to yonder, as they say--that this was a terrific step forward, that democratic accountability would return to this great city of London, and so on. But at the end of the day, they say, "Ah well, we are not going to go that far. We are not going to give the candidates the right to send out their election leaflets by free post".
	I can assure the Committee that when it came to the Scottish parliamentary elections in the constituency of Glasgow, Govan, which is certainly not very big but it is where I live, the candidates--there were a number of them and not just from the main parties--all sent me pieces of paper, which were quite interesting, to try to encourage me to vote for them. Not only that, but the top-up candidates in each party were able to send a piece of paper extolling the virtues of voting for them with my second vote, whatever I did with my first vote. There were probably more candidates in Govan than in most other constituencies in Scotland, but there were a good many candidates at those elections. I am sure that the cost of sending all those pieces of paper in Scotland was not dissimilar to what the cost would be in London. If the Government are serious about this reform in London, they should do what they have done in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and allow a free post.
	I have attached this issue to my amendment because I thought that that was a sensible way to flag up this problem. Without the Bill we shall be coming to two Prayers which I have tabled. Prayers, as Members of the Committee will know, are slightly more dramatic and "sudden death" outings. I hope that by doing it in this way, even if the Government feel that they cannot accept my amendment today, we have at least warned them that this is a matter which we take extremely seriously. They can either bring forward an amendment to the Bill at Report stage, if they do not like my amendment, or they can take away the subject of my Prayer, before they get down on their knees next week, and amend their Motion. Either way, I think that I can speak for my allies in this matter on the Liberal Democrat Benches and for my noble friends. We really do feel that we have to draw the Government up short on what we think is a major error on their part. Knowing their desire to have a large turn-out at these elections and at all other elections, they will, I hope, reconsider this matter. I trust that we shall hear from the Minister that they are seriously reconsidering it and that we can have some expectation that either via the Prayer or via amendments to the Bill a decision will be taken by the Government to allow a free post for these important elections. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: I have to tell the Minister that we on these Benches are four square behind the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on this matter. There is one minor technical problem with the amendment which I shall mention simply to get it out of the way. The amendment proposes that the mailshot for the London members should be piggy-backed on to the mailshots that are sent out on behalf of the constituency members. That seems perfectly reasonable because it means that the parties will be able to send out two mailshots--one for the mayor and one for the candidates for the assembly--rather than three. We accept that three is unreasonable. But it creates the problem that, as the amendment is drafted, independent candidates to be London-wide members of the assembly will not get a free mailshot. That would be wrong.
	The right to the free mailshot has applied, so far as my researches show, to all parliamentary elections at least since the passing of the Representation of the People Act 1948. It has also applied, as the noble Lord said, to the Scottish elections, the Welsh elections and the Northern Ireland elections, and to the European elections on every occasion on which European elections have been held by popular vote. It does not apply to local government elections for reasons which I shall explain in a few moments. The fact that it does not apply to local government elections provides only an extremely flimsy excuse for the Government.
	The Government's first proposals in this matter were "no free mailshot" and a very high spending limit of £900,000. A mailshot costs at least £400,000. So a £900,000 limit would have made it possible to send out a mailshot, but no party other than Labour or Conservative could have afforded it--indeed, probably not the Conservative Party if the reports of the state of its finances are anything like true. What could be the reason for that? Could it be that if Mr Livingstone were running as an independent he would be unlikely to raise enough money to afford a mailshot, although the official Labour Party candidate would? That is history because the Government's present proposal is that there should be a limit of £425,000 on a candidate for mayor; £35,000 for each constituency candidate and £330,000 for individual or list candidates for London members. In effect, that means that no one can provide a mailshot. I suppose that to some extent that levels the playing field, but it is in no way an adequate answer. It is not enough to have a level playing field. We need to know why there should be a mailshot.
	We need mailshots because candidates need to be able to communicate with their voters. In local elections, we do not need a free post. Wards are small. Outside the city of Birmingham, which for some historic reason has very large wards, few, if any, wards have more than 10,000 voters. It is therefore possible for a candidate in town or suburban wards to deliver addresses in person within two or three days, except perhaps in thinly populated rural areas. In London elections, it would clearly be not remotely possible for any single candidate to deliver, and it would be impossible to rely on volunteers to achieve hand delivery of a leaflet. Even if there were willing volunteers, more and more Londoners live in blocks of flats, behind locked doors and entry phones. That is true both of council and trust housing and of private housing. As someone who has canvassed in three parliamentary elections in London and in local elections in London, I can say that it is quite exceptionally difficult either to canvass or to get leaflets to people who live behind locked doors and entry phones. For a very large number of Londoners, the only information about the election which they receive is the poll card and the free mailshot. It is now being proposed that there should be no free mailshot.
	This is an extremely important election. It is the first-ever direct election for the office of mayor that has been held in any city in this country. It is the first election for many years for an elected body which represents the whole of London. It is a new system of voting. The mayor will have limited but important powers. If ever there was an election where voters need information about what is going on, this is it. If we end up with a percentage turn-out for this election in the 20s or 30s, it will be a disaster for democracy.
	Moreover, the Government's proposals mean that a high proportion of voters will receive only the poll card and nothing else through their door. They can, of course, read about the election in the press. But what will that tell them? It will tell them plenty about the misadventures with the truth of the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, plenty about Steven Norris's misadventures with women and plenty about Millbank's efforts to keep Ken Livingstone off the ballot. But about the issues and the other candidates, there will be nothing. Even Susan Kramer, our own excellent candidate for mayor, receives almost no publicity, and minor party candidates receive none whatever. Yet these are not fringe candidates. With the additional member system of voting that is in place, the Liberal Democrats will certainly get seats in the assembly, and it is possible, if not probable, that other parties will as well--as indeed happened in the European elections.
	The Government may claim that they are worried about the abuse of freemail for advertising. That did not happen in the European elections; nor to my knowledge has it happened in any election so far. Anyway, the problem could be dealt with by means of regulations prohibiting the circulation of leaflets which amount to commercial advertising.
	The refusal to provide a free post is deeply anti-democratic. There will be an election in which millions of electors will take part. It is the first election of a new body under a new electoral system. It is an election in which many electors are inaccessible to the candidates. Yet the Government propose to deny the right to the one thing that guarantees the parties a chance to state their case to every elector who is willing to read it. This a very serious issue. I must warn the Government that we shall use every possible method to obtain the right to a free mailshot, including support for the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, when he moves his Prayer next week.

Earl Russell: The arrangements for informal co-operation between parties and the management of business are loosely, accurately, if incompletely, known as the usual channels. They deserve a great deal more credit than they usually receive, because when they work well there is no news. For a very large part of the time they work very well indeed. They are, of course, particularly important for any of the political rules of engagement, and above all for the rules for the conduct of democratic elections. That those rules should command general consent is a vital part of the legitimacy of our government.
	One cannot, of course, always demand that everyone consents to absolutely everything. That would be to give to every party a veto on any arrangement, however unreasonably it might be exercised. But it is legitimate to expect of any democratic election that it should have the assent for its rules not only of the Government but of at least one significant opposition party, preferably including the Official Opposition.
	Above all, in a democratic state it is thoroughly undesirable that it should be possible for a government to lay down the rules for the conduct of an election without the consent of any other party whatever. When that happens, we are somewhere near the top of a very slippery slope indeed.
	I have made inquiries of those whose political memories are a great deal longer than mine--including the Electoral Reform Society, of which I have the honour to be president--as to how many such cases there have been since the war. As the debate began, we on these Benches were still discussing whether the number of cases since the war is one or none. It is certainly a very small number.
	The consultation paper for the regulations was published just before Christmas, with the consultation concluding on 4th January--itself a slightly uncomfortable timetable. It marks the concern about this issue that the timetable was met by every opposition party. At a press conference on 12th January the initial regulations were condemned by the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, the Electoral Reform Society, and Charter 88. That is a startling line-up.
	In response, the Government made significant concessions, which are welcome as far as they go. They reduced the mayor's proposed expenses from £975,000 to £420,000, and those of the list and constituency candidates in proportion. But in making that concession without the free post, they brought in the classic law of unintended consequence. They inadvertently shot themselves in the foot.
	According to the Government's own estimate, the cost of a free post to contact each individual elector is £750,000. The cost to contact each household is £420,000--and £420,000 is now the maximum possible sum that mayoral candidates are allowed to spend. So, were they to make a postal delivery to each household, they would be able to do nothing else whatever, even paying their phone bill.
	That is on a par with the classic story of Jimmy Carter's signature. In 1976, while running for President, Jimmy Carter discovered that letters from the President were not always seen or signed by the President. He was shocked to the core by that information. He delivered an election pledge that, if he were elected, every letter from the President would be personally signed by himself. Once he had been elected, his staff slowly and painfully persuaded him that fulfilling that pledge would take him precisely 24 hours a day. The Government have landed themselves in the pitfall of Jimmy Carter's signature.
	I have also made inquiries about what is the greatest number of electors a candidate has had to address previously without a free post. I have put down a Question for Written Answer. It has been down for 12 days and has not yet received an Answer. If I am mistaken, no doubt the Minister will take the chance to enlighten me, but my information is that the highest number candidates have been expected to address without a free post was in the GLC elections: it was between 70,000 and 80,000. The leap from those figures to over 5 million is a fairly steep step. The idea of personally contacting 5 million electors lacks credibility. As my noble friend Lord Goodhart reminded us, in many parts of London it is extremely difficult to contact electors any other way.
	The Kensington by-election of 1989, in which my noble friend was the first person to stand for Parliament as a Liberal Democrat, is still known in party circles as the "answerphone election", because that was the only way it was possible to make contact with the voters. What is more, free post puts candidates on an equality with each other. Since there is inevitably great inequality in many aspects of any election contest, that there should be one event based on equality in the political decathlon which leads to election is no more than good sense.
	The Minister may reply that this is a local election and therefore there is no free post. But local elections have no deposits, whereas there are deposits here. The Green Party claims that those deposits cost it an arm and a leg. If deposits are to be introduced, the Government have already departed from the comparatively safe ground of arguing that this election is treated exactly like any normal election. They have also introduced very tight rules for nominations. Candidates must produce 10 electors from each borough in London. Therefore, one cannot do it simply on the basis of strength in some boroughs.
	As my noble friend pointed out, there is plenty of room for negotiation on these points in future. However, the rules as to spending limits and deposits have been taken from national elections and the rules as to free post have been taken from local elections. These regulations are properly described as a genetically modified organism. As hybrids go, they are not particularly successful.
	The Government's concerns about free post have not proved widely convincing. I have repeated them to a good many people who ask why the Government have taken this position and have been met with widespread incredulity. The result is that conspiracy theories, some of which we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, multiply round the political gossip circle. I have no idea whether any, or even all, of those conspiracy theories are false. It is perfectly possible that we are dealing simply with the Treasury refusing to authorise the spending of even the last few pence. There is nothing in the world as good as the British Treasury at spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. But if it really is the position of the Government that they cannot afford free post, then if they could not afford to set up a Greater London authority, they should not have done it.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps the Committee will forgive a brief intervention. I was informed by the Table that I was too late to put down my name in support of the amendment. Having heard the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I do not believe that anyone could have put the case better. I ask the Minister whether he will defer to the traditions of this Chamber which on matters such as these are not motivated by party politics. The noble Earl made a fantastic contribution which was clearly delivered and wholly cogent and supportive of the speech of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I ask the Minister to take this back.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: In the early 1960s I ran the organisation (if such it can be called) of the Liberal Party. I became used to fighting battles for parties which were hard done by. I believe that I, along with my colleagues, did quite well in fighting our way back. As a result, at least the Liberal and Liberal Democrat Parties were no longer under that kind of threat. However, I had personal responsibility for fighting the battle which allowed all political parties to advertise nationally. Up to that time it had been thought that that was an illegal activity. I very much regret having won the battle.
	I have now moved to a party which finds itself in a worse position. Although it has very good elected representatives in Europe and the Scottish Parliament, other than myself it has no representation in Parliament. In the days when I was fighting the battles of the Liberal Party, we had at least six Members in the House of Commons. My party starts from a worse position. But we must fight for the rights of small parties, individuals and independence.
	The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that there was no party political point. I have detected several party political statements during the past half hour; and my remarks may well be the same. I represent a party which has a large number of voters in this country and reckons to have, on a conservative basis, at least two, if not more, members of the Greater London council when elected.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I was only suggesting that party political points can at times merge in sane consensus.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I thank the noble Lord for that intervention--I think.
	If the Government believe in democracy and believe that they are giving freedom to the people of London to choose their own government--I give them the greatest respect; it is long overdue--they must give way on this point. Other Members of the Committee have said that it is an extremely important point. It is not one on which we shall give in if we can beat the Government on it. It would be better for the reputation of the Government and of Parliament if they reconsidered the issue and returned with a provision for a more democratic election.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I do not understand why the amendment arises now. During the course of the GLA Bill the matter was not raised. The GLA Bill clearly laid down that the GLA was an arm of local government. No one thought then that there may not be a free post, as there is not for local government. It was at that point that people should have considered trying to amend the GLA Bill to provide that it was not an arm of local government. The Government are right to treat the GLA in the same way as they treat other areas of local government.
	The point was raised about whether the Government are serious about letting Londoners pick their GLA. Are we saying that the electorate do not have the freedom to pick the local authorities they want? They do not have a freepost.
	We may be establishing precedents. I should like to know whether the amendment is foreseen as a precedent. Will other directly-elected mayors be an arm not of local government but of national government because they will be allowed free post? That is the suggestion. There are so many flaws in the argument put forward.
	Where are all the people who have fought elections? I do not recall any candidate delivering personally every election address in local government.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Noble Lords were unlucky that they did not have a team of people behind them. I have fought many local elections and I can honestly say that I have never had to do that on my own; I have always had a team of people. In a serious election such as the GLA there will be teams of people doing the work. The idea that the candidate for mayor will deliver everything himself or herself is ludicrous. We all know that elections are not fought that way.
	I do not accept the argument that unless we have a free post the electorate will hear nothing about the candidates for the GLA or the mayor. If one analyses recent parliamentary elections, one finds that many parliamentary constituencies have stopped using the free post because they want to use a different design. It may not fit in with the Post Office requirements. Often they will use broadsheets or other documents. The idea that the free post is sacrosanct is nonsense. We have a later amendment which refers to new technology. We all know that new technology (and certainly the telephone, which is not new technology but which may be in election terms) is now used for elections almost entirely, and I am sure that it will be for the GLA election.

Lord Goodhart: Will the noble Baroness accept that one of the problems with telephone canvassing relates to the increasingly large proportion of people who are ex-directory?

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: That may well be true. I am ex-directory, but I seem to get a lot of telephone calls from many companies that somehow or other have access to my telephone number. If the noble Lord's point is accurate, why do the political parties spend so much of their time organising the use of the telephone as the main form of canvassing? It may well be that some people will be missed, but in the majority of cases they will be able to speak to the person concerned.
	What worries me is the question of cost. If it is the case that this might cost £15 million, do the taxpayers really want us to spend our money on having a free post? I find it ironic that this comes from the Opposition, because in 1995 I suggested that we might have a rolling register and I was told by the then government that £4 million was too much to spend on a rolling register in order to increase the number of people who participate. We are now told that it is acceptable to spend £15 million in order to put an election address through everybody's door. I do not believe that the two are comparable. I therefore question whether this is the best use of ratepayers' money. I also question why this amendment has come about now, rather than on two other occasions when it could have been raised.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall be very brief. I understand the argument put forward by the noble Baroness. She is a great expert in this matter. With respect, I do not wholly agree with it. That is not the question that I am putting. What on earth has it to do with this problem that this point was not taken previously--because nobody thought of it or had sufficient interest or expertise in it-- or that it is taken now? If it is right, it has to be taken.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I raised it because the GLA Bill quite clearly laid down that the GLA was an arm of local government. I am suggesting that that may well have been the appropriate time to say that it was not the arm of local government but an entity in itself and therefore was not bound by any local government rules or regulations.

Earl Russell: The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, tells us that many candidates now do not want to use the free post. She tells us that many people nowadays like marmalade instead. I am really not a fussy man, but I do like a little free post!
	The point that the noble Baroness makes about the Greater London Authority Act is, of course, perfectly valid. We should clearly have raised this matter on that occasion, but not everybody in this House knows all the Representation of the People Bill by heart. It has not for one moment occurred to anybody to whom I have spoken that the Government could possibly contemplate conducting the Greater London election without a free post.
	The Greater London Authority Bill happens to be the longest Bill ever put before Parliament in the whole of its history. If we are guilty of committing one oversight in handling the longest Bill in parliamentary history, for the sake of amicable relations between the parties, that, although we confess it to be an error, is one of which I believe it would be ungenerous to take advantage.
	The noble Baroness has also raised a serious point in asking how far this will go in other mayoral elections. Clearly, where we are dealing with the possibility of regional government, which is what the London election is, we have a category which is intermediate between the local and the national. Some agreed limit will have to be arrived at--I hope through the informal discussions between the usual channels which I raised at the beginning of my speech--about the numerical limit of electors which will entitle people to a free post. I do not believe that reaching agreement on that is beyond the wit of the political parties because, after all, we have a long tradition of reaching agreement on practical rules for the conduct of engagement. The question is a real one but it is not incapable of answer.
	As for the immediate cost, there are plenty of ways in which we could approach the question of keeping it down. If that is what is really worrying the Government, let us sit down and talk about it. I am convinced that it is solvable.

Lord Norton of Louth: I shall be brief because many of the points have been made. For the reasons already mentioned, this is an extremely important amendment. There is a qualitative distinction to be drawn between local government and what was proposed in creating the Greater London Authority. The question is not only one of size, which is important in terms of the number of electors, but there is a qualitative point in that, structurally, it is very different. Whatever the terms of the Act, one is not creating something similar to the local government to which we are used. Therefore, the issue needs to be seen in a different light.
	Literature and election addresses are circulated post free for three important reasons. The first is to ensure that electors are aware of what candidates propose to do in their name. That is extremely important. The second is that it ensures a level playing field; candidates enjoying the same facilities. That point was made extremely well by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The third is that it raises awareness of the campaign. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and it relates to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, as to why it is introduced at this stage.
	The third reason is especially pertinent in the context of this Bill. The Long Title indicates that the purpose of the Bill is to try to get electors more interested in local government and to raise turn-out. In that context, the amendment is highly appropriate. Failing to circulate election addresses will be likely to have a detrimental affect on turn-out.
	At Second Reading, I mentioned that evidence shows that campaigning acts as a stimulant to turn-out. If electors are unaware of an election, it is not surprising that they fail to vote. Therefore, the more election literature that is available the better.
	A fundamental point which derives from all that is that the distribution of election addresses should not be seen as a benefit to candidates, but rather as a benefit to electors. That is a crucial point and it is central to the health of the political system. Therefore, the question I ask in relation to cost is: what price democracy? If we are going to introduce this form of government, we must accept the consequences in terms of what should flow from it and the relationship between candidates and electors. That is fundamental. This is an important amendment and I hope that the Government, given the arguments that have been advanced, will accept it.

Baroness Hanham: I am conscious of the fact that the number of people who voted in the referendum on the mayor and the London authority was small and there is no evidence that that will improve in the elections on 4th May. There may be a number of reasons for that, but we are politicians and naively imagine that everyone is excited about elections. That is not known to be the case. Many people know nothing about the mayoralty, or the Greater London Authority, or what it amounts to, or why it is being introduced.
	The excitement I sense around about me is not intense and there is a great risk that people will not know about the election. We may believe that they will pick up on it from the newspapers and television, but the chances are that they will not. Therefore, if it is believe that this is a good democratic innovation, everything should be done to ensure that the electorate is, first, aware that there is an election, and, secondly, that it knows who are the candidates and what they are standing for.
	It is also totally nai ve to imagine that any party, however big, well resourced or replete with gangs of supporters, will be able to deliver all that information to every household. I am well aware of the doorbell problem. If I may say so, it has become much worse since 1989. If we want this election to be a success--and I imagine that this Government do want that because it was their great invention--then there should be a free post to deliver information directly to the doors of those who are going to vote.

Lord McNally: I do not believe there are four noble Lords in any part of this House whom I respect more in terms of elections and electoral organisation than those presently clustered on the Government Front Bench. Between them, they have an immense track record for electoral involvement and participation. However, in knowing that--and I am not alone in my opinion--I am absolutely bemused at how those noble Lords can lend themselves to this course of action. Furthermore, for the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, to use that last refuge in any debate of, "The amendment is in the wrong place" and "You should have done something about it earlier", is really unforgivable.
	Because we are told constantly that this House is a revising and advisory Chamber, then the service we should offer to the Minister tonight is to tell him, in case he is in any doubt--having listened to the breadth of the speeches--that the gun is loaded. This is not a party political matter. Many around the Committee believe this to be an outrage. To try to equate with local government what will be the biggest election for a single post is absurd. Those of us who have supported the Government in bringing forward a new form of regional government for London and in establishing the unique post of mayor of London are--to put it as mildly as possible--appalled that the Government should have decided to take this course.
	One reason why this matter has not been raised before is because, as my noble friend Lord Russell pointed out, no one in his or her wildest nightmares could have imagined that a Labour Government would try to pull a stunt like this. I believe that the Minister should go back and think very hard about this. The whole point and thrust of the Bill is to encourage more people to participate in our democratic procedures. To pull away one of the central props, by refusing a free post, is a grievous mistake. Before they make that mistake, the Government should think hard and change their mind.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have certainly got the message loud and clear from around the Committee tonight. Clearly this is an honest and open debate, but equally clearly it is a debate that has come rather late in the day. Although noble Lords may not like it, I am surprised that the matter has been raised as late as this.
	I should like to go through in more detail all the arguments that have been rehearsed and to set out the Government's position as clearly as possible. Amendment No. 71 would amend Section 91 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to give each mayoral and assembly constituency candidate in the Greater London Authority election the right to send an election address to every elector or every household in their respective constituencies, post free. It would also allow assembly constituency candidates of a registered political party to refer in their election mailings to candidates on that party's London-wide list. In a sense, taking into account the way in which the amendments have been phrased, that would perhaps act rather unfairly--perhaps in a discriminatory way--against the top-up list. However, that is how it has been set out before us.
	I want to make it clear that the Government oppose this amendment for very good reasons. I confess that it has a superficial attraction and, as one can hear this evening, one which is sufficiently large to bind not just two but three Opposition parties together in something of an unholy alliance.
	First and foremost, this is a local election. It has never been intended to be anything other than that. Section 17 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 makes that absolutely plain. Candidates at local elections do not have free mailshots. Much outrage has been expressed this evening that this is the largest ever election of its kind where there has not been--

Lord Campbell of Alloway: With great respect to the noble Lord--and I thank him for giving way--it is getting late. Can he stop reading his brief and deal with the merits of the argument on the Floor of the Committee?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am dealing with the merits of the argument. I make the point crystal clear. It was said that this is the largest election of its type without a free post. We have had Greater London elections cumulatively with the boroughs; we have had the Greater London Council; before that, we had the LCC. They did not rely on free post. They relied on local activism.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I hesitate to interrupt at this late stage. There is a tremendous difference. I was fighting elections under the old GLC system. One did not have to cover the whole of London in trying to support a candidate and now one does. That is the difference. I believe it has been said that there will be 5 million voters. How will one get a message to 5 million voters by the old-fashioned methods? I do not believe that it can be done.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The point is the size of the electorate. In order to secure control of the Greater London Council one had to appeal to an electorate city-wide. That was the case and we all understand that. That is the point that I am trying to make here. All those local elections take place without free mailshots. I believe that the point about the precedent issue is very important. Are noble Lords saying that in future, perhaps as the mayoral system develops in other major conurbations, we should make those accessible to free post? If they are, they are signing a very large blank cheque indeed. Is that where they are coming from on this argument?

Earl Russell: If that is not the position, there will be widespread doubt whether any further mayoral elections should be created at all.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Earl makes a point. However, the Local Government Bill is trying to encourage the development of local mayoral systems across the United Kingdom. I believe--I am sure that this is a widely shared belief--that that is a very valid way forward. However, I cannot believe that this evening Members of the Committee are saying simply that they want to see free post everywhere for that type of local government. If that is the case, I should like very much to see--

Lord Campbell of Alloway: What about answering the argument on the Floor of the Committee?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am taking us through the arguments. These are important issues. They are relevant to the debate that we are having this evening.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Does the noble Lord not appreciate that there is an enormous difference between candidates in an election with an electorate, even in parliamentary terms, of 70,000 or 80,000 and most local electorates where there will be considerably fewer than that, and an election where the electorate is over 5 million? There is a huge difference. They cannot be compared. It is not a good argument to continue to tell us that they can be compared.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that there is reasonable comparison. When local government elections are held throughout the UK, they involve very large electorates. Those elections are fought on party tickets as this election will be.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, the whole area may contain large electorates, but the area is divided up into several little wards where each ward has a candidate. With regard to the mayoral elections, we are talking of a ward--a constituency--of 5 million-odd electors. I suggest to the noble Lord that there is a difference of considerable magnitude.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not here to give a lecture on electoral organisation but I suggest to the noble Lord that ward-based systems and constituency-wide organisations are the mechanisms by which the literature is delivered and by which the arguments are put across. That is where the campaigning and canvassing takes place.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If that is the Minister's argument, why was it not good enough for the Northern Irish Assembly, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the United Kingdom Parliament and the European Parliament? Why not?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Because, quite simply, those are national elections. That is the basis on which the arrangements were put in place for those elections.
	I want to turn to the basic economics of the amendments. We propose that mayoral candidates should pay a deposit of £10,000. Under these amendments, for that outlay, they will be able to demand a free London-wide mailing to every elector in London. That is worth £0.75 million to be paid for by the taxpayer. That is what these amendments provide.
	The potential and scope for abuse are enormous. For a £10,000 deposit, a sharp business person wishing to make use of the system could secure London-wide publicity for his particular cause, obsession or business. That is for just £10,000 as a form of deposit.

Lord Goodhart: Does the Minister not agree that in addition to that £10,000 deposit, it would cost something like £100,000 to print the leaflets?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am sure that anybody who has commercial sense will make the best possible arrangements to secure value for money. But the point I make is that there is scope for abuse. I believe that Members of the Committee understand that and have accepted in the debate that there may be scope for abuse.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I have been an agent as well as a candidate. The Post Office requires to see the content of the leaflet before it will accept it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: That may well be the case but it is not allowed to vet it. The point is simply that the Post Office cannot vet the leaflet. It may well wish to see the leaflet but it certainly cannot vet its content or order it out of court, as it were.
	The election for the London mayor is an extremely high profile event. I am sure that we all accept that.

Lord Rennard: The Post Office is under a statutory duty to vet the entire content of the leaflet. It is part of the Post Office's elections regulations that the leaflet must conform entirely with the election and with no other matter. Furthermore, will the Minister tell us how many candidates abused the system in that way during last year's European elections when exactly the same rights existed as are proposed for the London elections?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord makes a fair point. But the point which I make is that there is accepted scope for abuse. If Members of the Committee cannot accept that point, then they are ignoring a very important issue indeed.
	Let us suppose that 20 people decide to stand for mayor and use their right to have a free mailshot to every elector. That is not beyond the realms of possibility. I am told that there have already been some 20 expressions of interest. I have made a simple and short list of the number of parties which could potentially put up a candidate for mayor. My list has 12 parties on it. I am told that more than 12 parties participated in the Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections last year.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall not ever intervene in this debate again. Perhaps I may most respectfully ask the noble Lord if it would not be wise to take this back because it is a serious matter and then it can all be considered in the light of what has been said.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I appreciate what the noble Lord has just said: that we are in Committee and that, therefore, interventions are entirely appropriate. But the noble Lord has now intervened three times in my noble friend's speech and on each occasion he has not contributed to the debate but has sought to speed up my noble friend's reply. Would it not be better for the Committee to allow my noble friend to reply to the debate?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps we may return to the important issue of economics. I do not believe that anybody would want to get away from that fact. If just 20 candidates were to stand, we would be talking about a sum of £15 million. If 40 people were to stand, we would be talking of £30 million. There are then the constituency candidates for whom a deposit of £1000 can obtain a free mailing in their constituency. In a flash, a sum equivalent to the entire budget of the GLA would be swallowed up.
	Perhaps we should remind ourselves that the first year budget for the GLA will be around £35 million. What would it be swallowed up for? It would not be for one new bus or one new train system; nor for the police or any of the vital functions of the mayor and the assembly. It would pay for leaflets through letterboxes. Can we honestly say that free mailshots for candidates would be the top priority of Londoners for expenditure of this order when so much else needs to be done with limited public funds.
	Local elections do not have free mailings. The media will be covering this event in the minutest detail. There was reference to the "Stop Ken" campaign. This is not about a "Stop Ken" campaign. That is utter nonsense. I suspect that Ken Livingstone has had more publicity than any of the other candidates are likely to get throughout the run of the election. I really cannot accept that as a serious argument.
	There is another point to be made. It would have been open to Members of the Committee to table amendments of this kind to the Greater London Authority Bill. As has been said forcibly, no one chose to do so. That was the appropriate time to make such amendments. There are plenty of additional matters we might have included in the Bill. Governments always have lists of things they would like to do if they have the right vehicle for them. However, nobody tabled an amendment of this kind.
	Members of the Opposition should exercise restraint in this matter. They are encouraging the Government of the day to spend £30 to £35 million, maybe more, on a blank cheque to underwrite to all political parties and all others who wish to participate in this election, so that they can get a free post. We do not feel that that would be public expenditure in the best of public interest. We believe that the risk of abuse, coupled with the fact that these are local elections under local rules, would set a dangerous precedent for outside London. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Russell: Before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether I might ask him a question to which he might possibly say yes. Would he undertake to consult the Electoral Reform Society, which has some expertise in these matters, about the ways of limiting or control the abuse he fears?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clearly we shall take advice from all quarters. No doubt the Electoral Reform Society will provide such advice if it believes that the arguments can be substantiated. I have no doubt that if we had had earlier notice of this issue we could have come up with systems which begin to curb abuse. No doubt there are other ways in which to curb expenditure. However, those are matters of detail. It is too late in the day in this run of arguments to go into such areas.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: On this occasion I cannot thank the Minister for his reply. I became increasingly amazed at the arguments. Perhaps the one that amazes me most is that somehow it is too late in the day to do anything.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that this should have been an amendment in the Greater London Authority Bill. I have not had time to skip through the Scotland Act but I do not believe there is mention of the freepost in Scotland. I could not be absolutely sure. I have tried to whip through it and I am pretty certain there is not. That provision came later in regulations. The same is true of Wales. I am not in a position to say one way or another about Northern Ireland. However, if the same precedent was formed, it came in regulations.
	The regulations have only just appeared. The fact that the Government had set their face against a freepost really only become apparent--

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. This comes back to the question of what is a local election and what is a general election. The election of assemblies and parliaments are general elections. Does the noble Lord accept that these are local elections and those are general elections?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought I had answered that.

Earl Russell: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. Would the Minister agree that the Government cannot stand on the platform that this is simply a local election until they cease to require deposits?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Earl makes a good point. I was simply going to say that we have been round this course many times this evening. This election is not a local election as we have understood them in this country up till now. It cannot be considered as such. I know the noble Lord dismisses it, but the scale of magnitude of the electorate for the election of one person is out of proportion to anything else in this country. There may be a few elections in England breaking 100,000 voters, but nowhere is there anything of the scale of 5 million. The Government created the Greater London Authority, which is a bit more than a local authority and a bit less, I accept, than a parliament; but it is certainly not just a local authority.
	My point was that, until these orders were laid, we did not know for certain that the Government were going to follow this course of action. We therefore took this opportunity to bring this matter forward. The Minister should be pleased; at least it is not next week when two Prayers are tabled and the Government are faced with a precipice because the rules of the House are inflexible on secondary legislation--that is not my fault. This is a flexible way forward for us to approach this issue. I proposed this as one way of dealing with the matter. I shall be happy to listen to any other proposals the Government have in order to save some of the money that they seem so worried about spending. They should have thought about that when they started off on the course of having a mayor for London with all the trumpeting that went with it.
	That is my first point. It is also an answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I want to get this on the record. Is the noble Lord saying that a blank cheque for these elections of perhaps £30 million or £40 million is entirely justified as a form of public expenditure when not one penny of that will contribute to the improvement of the police service, transport service or highway services in the capital?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not like to go over old arguments but the whole operation of electing a mayor will cost money. I am sure that that too can be translated into buses and the Underground service and so forth. The noble Lord willed having an authority over Greater London and willed having a mayor; he must face up to the consequences.
	In relation to the £20 million or £30 million, it will not take long for noble Lords to suggest ways in which the expenditure could be controlled, if that was necessary. I was going to leave this point, but, as the Minister keeps coming back to it, I should remind him that we had European elections, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, reminded me--I had forgotten about them--and they had a freepost system. Scotland and Wales are two easily defined areas. Anybody who wanted to have a free mail shot to every house in Scotland could easily have nominated himself or herself for the European Parliament and got on with it. As far as I recollect, that simply did not happen. There were two or three more political parties, but what is wrong with that? That is called democracy. Nobody abused the mail shot for the European elections in those large constituencies. If I am wrong, the noble Lord will no doubt tell me so.
	This idea that 20 or 30 candidates are going to stand for mayor, half of them to advertise their restaurant or whatever it may be, is really cloud cuckoo land. The Government will have to do a good deal better than that. I hope we shall not hear any more of that argument. We are talking about the situation which will occur in London with legitimate candidates. If the Government feel that we are going to be flooded with candidates who are not genuine, then let us look at increasing the number of people who have to sign nomination papers--it is already quite formidable in comparison with local government elections. The deposit also is infinitely more than the deposit required for local government elections. So the Government are not making this a local government election; it is more than that.
	The arguments have all been made. My noble friend Lady Hanham made one I had not thought about. She reminded us about the low turn-out in the referendum on the London issue. Frankly, it is valid to ask, given that low turn-out, are we looking at a low turn-out in these mayoral elections? This Bill is supposed to encourage people to vote. That is totally inconsistent with saying that there cannot be a freepost system operating in these elections.
	I am not sure if we have made any progress; I do not believe we have. But I hope that we have made this much progress. Members of the Committee on this side of the Chamber are serious about this issue. Even when we read tomorrow what the Minister says, I doubt that we shall be in the least convinced.
	I could be convinced about going for a compromise in order to find some middle ground, if that does not sound too much like consensus politics. But I am certainly not going to accept the suggestion that we can have absolutely no movement in this matter. I recommend to the Government that they start serious negotiations about some form of movement in this respect before I have to stand up and address this Chamber regarding the Prayers, where, as I said earlier, the situation is a good deal more dramatic than just amendments to a Bill, which can either be agreed or not agreed here and either accepted or not accepted in the other place.
	However, for the moment, and in the hope that the messages are being heard loud and clear by the Home Secretary and by the Prime Minister, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 72:
	Page 25, line 20, at end insert--
	:TITLE3:("Evidence of registration
	After section 180 insert--
	"Evidence by certificate of electoral registration.
	180A. The certificate of a registration officer that any person is or is not, or was or was not at any particular time, duly registered in one of the officer's registers in respect of any address shall be sufficient evidence of the facts stated in it; and a document purporting to be such a certificate shall be received in evidence and presumed to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved." ").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Registration: overseas electors]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 73:
	Page 28, line 37, leave out from ("where") to ("to") in line 38 and insert ("the entitlement of such a person").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 74 to 76:
	Page 29, line 27, leave out ("and Part I of the principal Act").
	Page 29, leave out lines 32 to 43 and insert ("that he was not resident in the United Kingdom on the relevant date.").
	Page 31, leave out lines 40 to 44.
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Registration: local elections in Northern Ireland]:
	[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 78 to 80:
	Page 32, line 24, leave out (", 13 and 13A") and insert ("and 13 to 13B").
	Page 32, line 30, at end insert--
	("( ) After the entry relating to section 62 insert--
	"Section 180A (evidence by certificate of electoral registration)." ").
	Page 33, line 9, leave out ("time,").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Restriction on supply of information contained in register]:

Baroness Turner of Camden: I have to tell Members of the Committee that, if the following amendment, Amendment No. 81, is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 82 to 91 inclusive.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: moved Amendment No. 81:
	Page 10, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 on page 11 and insert--
	(""10. Provisions requiring that the register prepared by virtue of this Act which shall be open to further inspection shall not be used without the consent of the person registered for any commercial purpose other than by a registered charity.
	11. Provisions making it an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale to contravene regulations made in pursuance of paragraph 10 above."").

Lord Campbell of Alloway: Many noble Lords--indeed, many people throughout this country--think that the commercial use of the register designed for other purposes without the consent of each person registered is not only an inexcusable invasion of personal privacy but also an unwelcome and virtually uncontrolled nuisance.
	As noble Lords probably know, there is no substantive domestic law that protects privacy as such. Members of the Committee may not wish to hear from any lawyer talking about law at this hour of night, but I am afraid that we cannot ignore Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is now assimilated as part of our law.
	The prediction of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the course of the debate on the Human Rights Act was that Article 8 of the convention would be the ideal vehicle to develop the right of privacy and remedies for its invasion. I shall not go into detail, but, broadly, in the case against Sweden--I can give references if any noble Lord wishes me to do so--it was held that personal data, albeit in another context, was of fundamental importance to the right of respect for private life.
	In another case against Spain it was held, again in another context, that the state had not struck a fair balance between the interests of the state and those of the rights of respect for privacy and family life. I make no personal criticism at all of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, in this regard--I hope that he will accept that--as the noble Lord relies on the advice of his department. However, it is not understood how on that advice he could have certified that the provisions of Clause 9 of this Bill were assuredly compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, knew much more about the matter than I before I started looking into it a few days ago.
	However, when one looks into the matter, it is formidable. As an interim step it is suggested that at the conclusion of this debate on Clause 9 the clause should be recommitted so that this matter may be referred to the committee which advises the Chamber on these matters. I do not know whether that committee has been set up yet; it should have been. At the moment, lawyers such as myself have to look things up and seek to advise the Chamber. That is not, frankly, satisfactory; certainly in my case.
	As I say, this is a serious matter. A certificate has been given. I tell the Committee in all seriousness and quite objectively, in a purely professional and not political capacity, that I reckon that the certificate should not have been given. Where do we go from there? Without effective advice it seems unreasonable that the Committee should say that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. In my respectful submission, it would be preferable that this clause should be recommitted.
	The Committee is dealing with a difficult question. We do not sit as if we were an appellate committee of the Chamber, with its evolving system of jurisprudence to resolve judicially whether, as a matter of construction, Clause 9 is, or could well be, in contravention of Article 8. I must point out to the Committee that--as was said in the Netherlands case, which is the final authority I have consulted--there may be positive obligations on the state to adopt measures designed to secure respect for privacy and family life, albeit, again, in another context.
	I have read the CBI brief, the DMA brief--I have them all here--and the WWAB Collins Group brief, all of which stoutly defend their commercial interests, as one would reasonably and fairly expect. But in none of those briefs, in none of those papers, in none of the Notes on Clauses--and that is far more important--is there any reference to the incidence of Article 8 of this convention which, under the Human Rights Act, is assimilated as part of our domestic law. The arguments in these briefing papers are understood but, with respect to them, not accepted.
	But let me for a moment consider the arguments on the assumption that they are accepted--but, most assuredly, that cannot be so without the consent of all persons on the register. A single tick in a box by someone who wishes to receive all the material cannot be appropriate to bind him to, not surrender, but invasion of his privacy.
	I shall say no more other than to ask the Government to take this matter back, to take further advice--if possible, from across departments: from the Lord Chancellor's Department, from the Attorney-General's Department, from any other independent source, even from the Bar--and to give it serious consideration; otherwise the clause should not stand part of the Bill.

Lord Goodhart: I can go some of the way, but not the whole way, with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I use the occasion of this amendment to speak rather broadly on the whole subject of Clause 9. That will save me from having to raise the issues again when we come to later amendments, including those tabled in my name.
	These are difficult and contentious issues which have given rise to differences of opinion within my own party as well as within other parties. It is a case where disclosure of names and addresses is required by law. It is required for clearly legitimate purposes connected with elections. That information is needed in order that polling cards can be sent out, and staff in polling stations can issue ballots and check off the names of voters. It is also needed so that candidates can communicate with the voters.
	In recent years, the register has been used for other purposes, particularly commercial ones. This is a relatively recent development which has arisen since the register was published in electronic form. Previously, the copying of printed registers was something which was clearly not worth the effort. Commercial purposes for which registers have been used include credit checking, the identifying of targets for junk mail and the cleaning and up-dating of commercial data bases. Also, there are a number of non-commercial uses, such as use by private detectives, police checks on whether the names and addresses given by suspects are accurate, and charity fund raising.
	Anyone can buy a complete United Kingdom register on CD ROM and there is no control over the purpose for which that can be used. It could be used, for example, by a racist organisation to identify everyone on the register who had one of a number of common Asian surnames. The basic principle of data protection is that information collected for one purpose should not be used for another purpose without the consent of the data's subject. Furthermore, I agree in part with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that there is a serious problem under Article 8 of the European Convention on the respect for private life. The provision is clearly in breach of Article 8(1), unless it can be justified under Article 8(2). Unless there is an edited register, there may be serious problems. Unrestricted publication of the register is not in accordance with those basic principles.
	The restrictions proposed by the Government have been subject to intensive lobbying campaigns. The lobbyists put forward a number of effective points: access to the edited register alone makes it much more difficult to carry out credit checks; it is more difficult for commercial organisations to keep their databases up to date--which it is in the general public interest to do; and it is more difficult for charities to send out appeals. The Government have accepted the argument for credit check access to the full register. On other issues, the Government, rightly, have not given way.
	It is true that it is in the interests of mail-order companies to keep their databases up to date. That reduces the number of misdirected mailshots, which is in a sense in the public interest. But modern technology increases the amount that other people may know about us to an enormous extent--something unimaginable a generation ago. The economic benefits of organisations having access to the full register are not sufficient to outweigh the right of anyone to say, "I don't want my name and address to go on a CD-ROM or on the Internet and to be accessible to anyone, simply because my name is on the electoral register".
	We accept that the edited register should be opt-out rather than opt-in. We have tabled amendments to ensure that the attention of anyone thinking of signing an opt-out form is drawn to the possible adverse consequences. We have tabled an amendment to try to ensure that other members of a household consent to an opt-out given in their name. We want to ensure that those who opt out may opt back in as easily as possible. But the case which is made for allowing the full register to be used for non-electoral purposes, even for charities, must be a strong one. If I do not want to be on a charity mailing list, I believe that it is my right not to be on a charity mailing list.
	A case has been made out for credit checking. A further case has made out for some police purposes. There may be other limited cases where controlled access to a full register is desirable. But there should be no general widening of access to the full register. On that issue, the Government have broadly got it right.

Lord Borrie: I should like to comment on the amendment. I have tabled an amendment myself, which stands also in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and Lord Naseby. It may be convenient if I follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in giving broad views on Clause 9. I should start by saying that, although I do not have any business interests in the area of direct marketing, I am the independent chairman of the Direct Marketing Authority--a body with a majority of independent members which determines complaints against direct marketers for any breaches of their self-regulatory code. My reason for tabling an amendment and intervening in the debate on Clause 9 is that through that activity I have acquired some knowledge of the industry.
	I was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate, but I read it in Hansard with particular interest because I was struck by what appeared to be a degree of discrepancy between the objectives of the clause as stated by the Minister and the actual proposal in the clause to restrict the availability of the register. For example, at col. 14 of the Official Report of 31st January, the Minister said that there was particular concern for victims of domestic violence and about the problem of stalking. Yet, as the noble Lord, who is, I hope, departing only for a moment, himself said a little further on in the same column, the full register will be available for inspection in public libraries. I could not see anything in the Government's proposals that would thwart the determined stalker or former husband desirous of seeking out his ex-wife from checking up on her in the public library.
	I then thought about the Government's objective of ensuring that the maximum number of eligible people should register to vote. It was said that restricting the availability of the full register would encourage people to register, yet the Government produced no evidence to show that the present wide availability of the full register--not only present but over many years in recent times--is a factor deterring individuals from seeking registration.
	Coming more closely to the matter of direct mail, it was said that people are fed up with junk mail and that the tiresome receipt of junk mail would be significantly reduced if traders no longer had access to the full electoral register. There are several answers to that point. Few direct marketers use the electoral register to draw up their marketing lists. What they do is draw up, or purchase from those who commercially draw them up, purchase lists, often carefully targeted at people with known interests and likely purchasing intentions, but they use the electoral register to verify and to validate people's addresses. In other words, they use the electoral register to validate their own database, not to create it. That is surely in the public interest. It reduces the likelihood of people receiving unintended and unwanted mail and, for example, mail being sent to people who are no longer alive. In any case, it is reasonably well known--Members of the Committee will have seen this in post offices up and down the country--that people who do not want junk mail, either of a general or a particular kind which they find a nuisance, can use the mail preference service, which is a self-regulatory organisation, to get rid of that material which they do not want. There is also a telephone preference service and even a fax preference service.
	The Direct Marketing Association, which is the trade association to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred, has been in touch with the Home Office over a long period about its concerns regarding Clause 9 as it stands. The association believes that the clause could put severe restraints on a form of trading which is competitive, well regulated and, most important of all, is found to be extremely convenient and helpful to millions of our fellow citizens. The industry has an annual revenue of some £30 billion.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am obliged to the noble Lord. He will know as well as I that there is no reference in our domestic law to Article 8 of the convention or the right to privacy.

Lord Borrie: The noble Lord is correct. I was about to come to the specific point of his amendment. If I was speaking more broadly, it was because I was following the precedent set by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which seemed to be a good precedent. The rather more technical amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, if may call it that without disrespect, happened to come before the more substantive amendments as to whether Clause 9 is good or should be changed. I imagined that those who sent briefing had taken as read the certificate referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that the Human Rights Act, and therefore the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 8, are being adhered to and that there is nothing in this clause or the rest of the Bill to go against it.
	The point to which I was referring when the noble Lord intervened was that to deprive industry of the facility of validating its lists of prospective customers would appear to be damaging not only to the industry--that may not matter--but also to the public who benefit from the checks on names against addresses which the electoral register provides.
	It would be helpful to have an indication from the Government, bearing in mind the concession referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, during the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons, that the full register would be available to check credit. It will be available to credit reference agencies, banks and so on. I should have thought that that would be very helpful to customers, because if those checks cannot be made, a decision may be made which is adverse to a customer, who would not receive the credit that he or she might otherwise. Surely the Government and Members of the Committee would disapprove of that because it would give rise to the possibility of social exclusion. So I am glad that the Government have made that change.
	I am interested to know whether they will make other concessions. For example, it is of interest to millions of customers who purchase via direct mailing throughout the country that their names can be validated by an examination of the full register. It seems to me that that is in no way damaging to anyone's privacy. It seems to be most helpful to customers if that can be done. I shall refer to the specific purposes of my amendment when we reach that.

Lord Norton of Louth: My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway made some telling points in relation to Clause 9, as did the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I agree with a great deal of what was said. At Second Reading, I outlined my concerns about the provisions of the clause. Like other speakers, I shall combine my comments on my noble friend's amendment with comments on the clause generally. The two come together quite well.
	At Second Reading, I indicated that I had a principled objection to the sale of the register, and that remains. I am completely unconvinced by the briefing that we have received, and I am afraid that I remain totally unconvinced by the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, which do not address the objection on principle.
	Registration is required by Act of Parliament. It is a fundamental requirement of our democracy. There is no provision for opting out. Voting is not compulsory, but registration is. The statutory requirement to register must be balanced against the right to privacy. When I register, I do so in order to qualify to vote. My name appears on the register for that purpose alone.
	A case can be made for political parties to have access to the register, under licence, for the purpose of campaigning. That flows from the nature of the electoral process. It is related to the exercise of the vote. That is fine. I also accept that the register may be used on a confidential basis, according to clear guidance, for the purpose of combating crime. I can see that electors may authorise other bodies to check the names on the register.
	However, that is probably as far as I would go. When I register to vote, I do not register for the purpose of allowing anyone who obtains access to the register to solicit me for commercial, or indeed any non-electoral, purposes. I concede that purchasing the register may be invaluable to commercial firms and charities. But the usefulness of access does not establish a right of access. I have a fundamental principled objection to the sale of the register--full-stop.
	The Government recognise the problem and have sought to address it by drawing a distinction between an edited register and a full one. I object to the sale of any register. Although the issue is a difficult one, the way forward must be based on very limited access to the register. At a later stage I may raise fundamental issues about the publication of and access to the register. We must look at the register in terms of limited access if we are to address some of the fundamental problems of privacy. It is not just a case of having an opt-out for commercial firms; one must protect one's privacy from other dangers as well. The distinction between an edited and a full register does not deal with those dangers.
	I have great sympathy with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. While it is an improvement on what exists now, and to that extent I support it, I should like it to go further. Therefore, I believe that this clause should be withdrawn and we should return to the matter later. For the reasons that we have heard, the status quo is not an option in order to comply with the requirements of data protection and so there must be a change. However, I am not persuaded that the manner in which the clause addresses the problem is the way forward. The Government have made a real attempt to deal with the problem, but I believe that the method that they have adopted does not tackle the nub of it. My solution would be more radical, with very strong emphasis on the right of privacy. I suggest that the Government take this away and come back with a completely new clause.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Since my name appears on the Marshalled List next to the amendment to be moved later by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and my remarks will be brief and of a general character, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if at this stage I support the arguments that the noble Lord has advanced. Like the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I have no particular interest to declare. In the past my connection with the advertising industry was similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in that I was one of the regulators of standards. There are very substantial issues relating to a major part of the economy of this country--the advertising and marketing industry--which need to be faced.
	My noble friend Lord Goodhart put forward with admirable clarity his approach to these problems which, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was based on our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. I await with interest the Government's response to the fundamental question of the legal position. Listening to my noble friend Lord Goodhart, my only doubt is that, if we are in breach of the European convention by making the register compulsory for statutory purposes and making it available beyond its immediate purpose, I am not sure how we justify drawing the line. I hope to be persuaded by the Government that our international obligations, which we must observe, give us a good deal of flexibility in making a judgment about exactly where the line is drawn. I accept that it is a very difficult balance to strike, but I am not clear as to the best compromise to be offered at the end of the day.
	Perhaps I may offer one word to Members of the Committee, all of whom in one way or another are my noble friends. I believe that politicians should be cautious about becoming too rigidly self-righteous about intrusions into privacy. We now live in a world of electronic commerce, which I do not claim fully to understand. However, when it comes to junk mail and intrusions into privacy we as professional politicians who have played a part in public affairs have done our share. When first I was a candidate and a Member of Parliament for Dundee, in the pre-electronic age, we got the voters out by going around with a dinner bell. Then we moved into the electronic age. We managed to get a loudhailer and felt we were very "with it"--but, my goodness, we intruded into privacy.

Lord Norton of Louth: I take the point the noble Lord makes. However, as a teenager I remember canvassing. When one knocked on a door, one asked the elector whether he would vote for you at the election. One did not then ask, "May I sell you something?"

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I take the noble Lord's point. I am not dogmatic about where the line is drawn. I simply believe that we should be a little cautious about how rigid we are.
	I suffer from the flood of junk mail through my letter box like everyone else. Much of that junk mail which causes me irritation is political, sometimes from my own party. I say that in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who made such an excellent maiden speech recently. Much of that mail comes from pressure groups. There is a real problem to be faced.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: There is no objection if one wants it and consents to have it. Presumably one consents to have it from one's own party. However, it is when one does not consent to have it that the invasion of privacy occurs.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: With respect to the noble Lord, I am not sure that the issue is as simple as that. The register is a register. The action of the individual may safeguard him from receipt of junk mail, but it leaves the public issues still to be resolved.
	I am genuinely puzzled about the Government's compromise. How will this two-tier system work? Is it enforceable? Is it practicable if one has a major statutory document such as an electoral register which is part of transparency in public life? It has to be in the public library. How will one enforce the two-tier system proposed? I do not know the answer. Should not there be a further opportunity for the Government and all those concerned to study the issue and return with more details of the final arrangements? That might help to balance these conflicting considerations.
	I recognise the urgency of the Bill with regard to the pilot schemes for the coming local government elections. But the regulations that will follow the Bill have not yet been drafted. We do not know their content. Much discussion lies ahead.
	In conclusion, the advertising and marketing industry is part of the modern economy. It is part of our living standards in this country. It should be regulated in the public interest. But it is an important part of our economy. I find it strange that the working party chaired by a colleague of the Minister from the Home Office--it was well represented by representatives of the political parties-- had no representatives from the marketing and advertising industry, if not as members, at least as assessors. That industry was not even offered the opportunity to give direct evidence and to submit to cross-examination. We have a long way to go in considering the issues raised by Clause 9.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Noble Lords have ranged rather wider than the amendment. The speech of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was very germane to the whole argument.
	My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth takes an absolutist view. I understand that. I think that he received some nods of agreement from some areas of the Committee. His absolutist view is that the register is prepared for electoral purposes and that, bar those electoral purposes and the political parties, no one else should be allowed to use it. I must say that as a cogent argument to put forward in a debate, it is not a bad place to start. I can tell my noble friend that in many ways I might be quite content to argue on his side, but there are some other pressures--and those pressures have come from other noble Lords who have spoken-- where the electoral register is used by other people for reasons which benefit not just them but the individuals whose names appear on the register. This is one of the most difficult issues.
	The point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was that to use the electoral register for any purpose other than the purpose for which it is mandatorily collected would in fact be a breach of the European Convention. We very clearly need to know that. The reason we need to know it very clearly is, as I said much earlier today, twice in Scotland in the last few weeks the courts have made a decision about something which people thought was a long-standing arrangement in the law of Scotland, and indeed in the second case in the law of the United Kingdom, and these long-standing arrangements are in danger of being struck down because they are in breach of the convention.
	Today another issue has been raised in the press by lawyers who think that another aspect of the law of Scotland, much admired in the children's panel arrangements dealing with juvenile offenders, may well breach the European convention. When the Government embarked on bringing the European convention into domestic law, I do not believe for a moment that they thought that it might strike at any of the three legal positions at which it has struck. Put very simply, in the case of the cameras it is likely that in Scotland one could with safety drive past them at any speed, because the kernel of a conviction is that the driver has to admit to being the driver. The court has found that that is a breach of the convention; you are incriminating yourself. I therefore believe that the Government will seriously have to address this point.
	Is any sale of the register a breach of the convention? I might even ask my noble friend why, if I have correctly heard his argument, a sale to a registered charity is not a breach of the convention. If a registered charity sends me something, that must surely be as great an invasion of my right to privacy as it would be in the case of anybody else sending me something.
	As I listened to the debate, I was reminded once or twice of the old adage, "When in a hole, stop digging". I believe that your Lordships have just been digging this hole ever deeper. Perhaps the only person who is on safe ground is my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who says that we should not have a hole here at all, which is quite a safe position to be in.
	I look at the submission from the Data Protection Register. This is a summary of a submission in August 1998 to the Home Office Working Party, which states:
	"The existing arrangements whereby the register is sold without restriction for non-electoral purposes should be discontinued".
	There does not appear to be any qualification there about giving it to some but not to others, giving it to charities but not to others. This is a very difficult area. It does go on to say:
	"Individuals' details should not be sold on unless they have signified agreement either generally or for specific purposes".
	We will come to the question of whether or not a tick in a box is a general agreement or an agreement for specific purposes. This is an extraordinarily difficult proposition.
	I was going to talk about some of the other issues that have emerged and follow the bad example of other noble Lords who have strayed rather wide of the amendment. I shall not do so, however, because addressing this simple issue of the position of the European convention may well mean that we can shortly go home. If the noble Lord, Lord Bach, says that it may all be in contravention of the convention, we may have to start again, or perhaps we may have to stay and go through some of the other amendments. In the meantime, until we are clear about the impact of the convention rights on any use of the electoral register other than for electoral purposes, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, we should not proceed with any of the other issues as to who else might get access to the register and who might not, which, of course, is equally to the point.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend for clarification. Does he accept that only without the consent of the person on the register is it a breach of the convention. Secondly, does he agree in principle that in this situation Clause 9 should be recommitted so that we may have advice upon it?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As to the latter point, after tonight's debate I can predict how things will go. The Government will be well advised to take the clause away and think carefully about it. Whether on Report they come forward with a new one which might need recommitment is entirely a different matter. If the clause were significantly different, it would need recommitment.
	As regards my noble friend's first point, I concede that I may be prepared to tick the box for charities to use it, but no one else; I may be prepared to tick the box for the credit companies to use it because I may want credit, but no one else; and I may well be happy to receive junk mail because it livens up other boring mail so I shall not want to tick a box. Therefore, there may be so many options that as regards this hole we should all stop digging.

Lord Bach: We have had a fascinating discussion and it is meant as a compliment when I say that many heavyweight Members of this House have taken part. It has given the Government food for thought. My response will not be long, but I hope that it will be clear. Obviously, we shall need to look carefully at what has been said and consider it. I do not say that we shall change our minds, but we need to reconsider the matter carefully. When one hears arguments carefully put on both sides, it behoves government to re-examine the issue.
	I want to make a couple of general comments and then move to what we are in danger of forgetting; that the debate stems from a single amendment dealing with charities. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, brought us back to that. First, unless the provisions of Clause 9 are enacted, the full electoral register will continue to be available to anyone who wants to buy it. The Government have clear advice from the Data Protection Registrar that that would not meet the requirements of the EU data protection directive. Secondly, we are advised that we would be at risk of being found in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with privacy. I choose my words carefully; that "we would be at risk".
	In Clause 9, we are trying to strike the balance between the need to respect data protection and privacy requirements and the established use of data from the electoral register for certain purposes. Under our arrangements, anyone who does not want his or her name included in the version of the register which will be freely available for sale will be able to opt out of such inclusion. Two versions of the register will be produced by electoral registration officers. As Members of the Committee know, an edited version will list only the names of those who have not exercised their opt-out right and a full version will list the names and addresses of all electors. The edited version will be available to anyone who wants to buy it, but the full version will not. However, the full version will continue to be displayed in town halls, libraries and so forth, so that it can be inspected locally.
	As Members of the Committee know, we intend to provide in regulations made under Clause 9 for the full register to be made available to the police and other relevant agencies for law enforcement and crime prevention purposes; to credit reference agencies for use in connection with applications for credit; to banks to make money laundering checks; and, as at present, to Members of Parliament, local councillors and candidates at elections for electoral purposes. We believe that these arrangements will achieve something like a proper balance.
	If the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, were to be accepted, there would continue to be available only a single version of the register. It would list the names of all the electors in the relevant area, but its availability would be severely limited. Only registered charities would be able to use it for commercial purposes. No edited version would be available that could be freely bought and used by others for commercial purposes.
	Clearly, the noble Lord is not alone in his belief that much tighter controls should be placed on the availability of the register. Because of that feeling, the Working Party on Electoral Procedures, which has been mentioned in the course of our debate, devoted a considerable amount of time to this issue. The working party concluded--I emphasise that the conclusion was supported by all its members--that the arguments for retaining a commercially available register are strong. The Government are not persuaded that it would be right to depart from that position. None the less, the working party recommended that people should be able to opt out of being included in the version of the register that will be made available for sale. Thus, two versions will be created: a full one to be used for electoral and law enforcement purposes; and the edited version.
	Clause 9 allows for regulations to be made and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was right when he said that we are still considering exactly what form those regulations should take. I do not apologise for that; it is not an easy matter.
	The Government are minded to allow the full register to be used for the purpose of establishing identity in connection with credit applications. We have established with the Data Protection Registrar that this will not breach the EU directive on data protection and it will ensure that people who decide to opt out of inclusion in the edited register will not find it more difficult to obtain credit.
	Perhaps I may also stress, since this point was raised in the noble Lord's amendment, that we intend that the full register will continue to be available for public inspection in public buildings--town halls and libraries. We regard that as an important safeguard against fraud.
	I should like to turn to the question of charities, a point covered by the noble Lord's amendment. Charities tend to use the electoral register for the purpose of sending out fund-raising letters. While we may applaud their motives in doing so, it would be foolish to overlook the fact that this is a form of direct marketing. The EU directive on data protection specifically refers to direct marketing. For that reason, we do not believe that we could give charities direct access to the full register without being in breach of the directive. However, it goes without saying that there is nothing to stop charities from buying and using the edited version.
	That completes my remarks on behalf of the Government tonight. However, we shall look carefully at the debate and I undertake to return to the Committee with any changes. However, for the moment we feel that we have achieved about the right balance. Indeed, I am encouraged by the words of general support from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Nevertheless, this is an important matter and I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like not merely to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, but also to pay tribute to him for the trouble he has taken to deal with all the arguments with such care. He has produced a constructive background upon which to consider the whole matter--because it will have to be considered.
	Perhaps I may say at once that I take his point about charities. I believe that he is right and that I was wrong here. However, a principle is at stake, as it is a matter of Community law that is now a part of our law, and we had better approach it rather carefully between now and the next stage of this Bill. Certainly I hope that, on behalf of the Government, the noble Lord will be prepared to entertain discussions and representations and, far more importantly, to seek advice of the highest order, not necessarily only government advice but perhaps independent advice from the Bar. This is a very important matter.
	In the meantime, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, in particular my noble friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Norton of Louth and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I do not believe that I shall come back to it in precisely the same form but back, inevitably, I shall come.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 82:
	Page 10, line 32, leave out ("both the full register and the edited register may") and insert ("the full register and the edited register may each").

Lord Bach: In moving Amendment No. 82, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 83, 87, 88, 89 and 91. I hope that we can take this series of government amendments a little more briefly. These amendments all relate to the practicalities of the new system that the Bill aims to put in place in relation to the electoral register. Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 are purely drafting amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 are concerned with the uses to which the full electoral register may be put. If we are to limit access to the full electoral register, clearly we need to have regulations which govern the uses to which it may be put. By way of an example, it would be quite wrong if a local councillor who also happened to run a mail order business was able to use the copy of the full register he received wearing his councillor's hat for business purposes when other mail order businesses were denied access to the full register. We believe that the Bill should make clear that regulations can be made which govern not only to whom copies of the full register may be supplied but also the purposes for which it may be used. That is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 87 to 89.
	Amendment No. 91 is designed to ensure that if misuse of the register occurs because an organisation which has access to the full register has inadequate safeguards in place, the directors of that company should be liable for their negligence.
	I hope that the Committee will agree that these are worthwhile amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: In the last debate, which I listened to with fascination, I exercised at this hour of the night a commendable restraint--at least I hope that my noble friends will regard it as commendable--as I did not join in. However, I was mildly perturbed by something that the noble Lord said in his response. He said that the Government were "minded" to allow the credit agencies and the banks to make use of the full register. That sounds to me as though they have not made up their mind on that matter. In another place at Third Reading the Minister said:
	"we believe that the full register should be available to credit and finance companies for the purpose of establishing identity in connection with credit applications".--[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/00; col. 889.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way briefly. I believe that my noble friend Lord Bach did use the word "minded", but we are absolutely clear that we intend that to be the case. Therefore, I hope that that clarifies the point.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: In that case, I have no wish to read further what was said in another place. That is a clear government intention. It then comes to the question, as he rightly said, of the regulations. In responding to the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, indicated one or two areas where the regulations would be restrictive. Amendment No. 87 refers to "Provisions specifying" and then goes on to refer to,
	"the purposes for which copies supplied to such persons under such regulations, or information contained in them, may be used whether by such persons or by employees",
	and so on.
	As well as precluding the two-faced councillor from using the register for his mail-order business when he has obtained it because he was a councillor, I ask the Government to make it absolutely clear that the regulations will be inclusive and will make it abundantly clear that the banks and other credit agencies will be entitled to use the information.
	Considerable efforts were made to try to persuade the Home Office--and the Treasury was brought in to bat on behalf of the industries which they sponsor--that it really is in the interests not least of first borrowers that the banks and agencies should have access to check the information. It may be regrettable, but it happens to be true that the information on a registration form has always been more true than that supplied by an applicant for financial services.
	The electoral register is likely to show the full and accurate name and, over a period, will provide an element of history. All that serves an essential function if credit is to be given by a building society or whatever it may be. I believe that the Government have accepted that, but I seek an assurance that the regulations will make that absolutely clear.

Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I apologise for my lawyer's caution in my use of the expression "minded to". But my noble friend has quite rightly put the Committee right about that. That decision has been taken.
	I assure the noble Lord that the regulations will be--I use his word--inclusive in the particulars to which he referred in his intervention. I hope that that assists him.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am grateful for that. That does meet my argument.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These amendments take us into the complex issue of who may be able to obtain the full electoral register. My noble friend Lord Jenkin has just explored one of the exceptions. I was going to say "possible exceptions", but we now know that they will be exceptions.
	I do not know anything about this particular field but I have been bombarded by the most amazing amount of paper. I raise this issue because, on the face of it, it seems to be part of the problem which the Government will encounter when they start making fine distinctions.
	As I understand it--no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong--some companies will be allowed to purchase the whole of the electoral register in order to run those credit control systems. I gather that the two companies involved are called Equifax and Experian. I have a letter here from another company called i-CD publishing. It tells me what terrific work it does, largely supplying the electoral roll via software and the Internet. I am told that the Government now heartily approve of all those things. The latter company claims that it is a competitor of the two other companies which I have mentioned. It goes further and says that it is used largely by small businesses for credit controls whereas, by implication, the other two tend to be used by big businesses, presumably because their information is not available on the Internet or by e-mail. It complains that it has never been consulted and that, on the face of it, its two competitors are to be granted a right which it has not been granted.
	I simply take the letter at its face value. As I said, I do not know very much about this field. But if that is the case, I suggest to the noble Lord that the Government should do something to address that. That is the problem with moving away from the firm and high ground of my noble friend Lord Norton.
	When one starts to make exceptions to the rule one must be absolutely sure that one does not favour one competitor against another and that one deals with a class of exceptions rather than individually named ones. I hope that I have made that point clear and that either tonight or some time in the next week or two we can be clear about the position as claimed by ICD Publishing.

Lord Bach: We note the point raised by the noble Lord and will consider it. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 83:
	Page 10, line 35, leave out ("that") and insert ("the edited").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 84:
	Page 10, line 36, at end insert--
	("(c) confirming that, where the exclusion of the name and address of a registered elector from the edited register is requested on behalf of that elector, the elector has consented to that request, and
	(d) explaining any adverse consequences likely to flow from the exclusion of the names and addresses of registered electors from the edited register").

Lord Goodhart: I have already spoken to the principle behind the amendment and therefore wish to move it "semi-formally".
	We take the view that the various advantages which may accrue to people from opting in, or remaining opted in, should be made clear. It should also be made clear that people who opt out, or appear to have opted out, have agreed to do so.
	Amendment No. 84 contains two parts. The first half requires that the opt-out form should make it clear that the person who signs it has consulted and obtained the approval of other persons in the same household. The opt-out form will be part of the canvass return circulated to everybody which has to be returned in October. For the purposes of simplicity, it will be dealt with in a single document. We believe that as only one person will sign and return it, it should contain a provision that that person has obtained the consent of any other member of the household to that person's opting out. The opt-out form should also make clear if any adverse consequences may flow from the exclusion of the name of any member of the household from the edited register.
	Amendment No. 85, to which I also wish to speak, is self-evident. It is largely a probing amendment, asking what arrangements the Government have in mind to ensure that people who have opted out and then changed their minds can, within a reasonably short period of time, opt back into the edited register. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is perhaps the time to raise a problem mentioned briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I refer to how an individual indicates that he wants to be in the full register but to opt out of the edited version.
	From our previous discussions and those in another place, I understand that currently the head of the household will tick the box. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, that does not cover the position of other people in the household. If the head of the household does not tick the box, could one other member of the household say that his rights under the Data Protection Directive and the European Convention would be infringed, and who would be infringing them? Would it be the head of the household for not ticking the box or the electoral returning officer for not asking the question of the person as an individual?
	The interesting point, as I said at Second Reading, is that the working party said clearly at paragraph 12 that the form should be amended to include information about the purposes to which the information may be put--that is, the information if your name was on the full register--and to allow an opt-out box for each person included on the form and all commercial activities. That suggests that the working party envisaged a form with a box to be ticked by each person whose name was written down on the form. I feel that that is the proper way to do it and just asking the head of household to tick may not be the proper way.
	We have gone into these arguments before, but it is likely that the head of household may not be bothered about a company checking him for his creditworthiness because he may have cards from his banks and so forth that show that he is clearly creditworthy; whereas his 20 year-old son may be in quite a different position. He may go along to buy his first car and find that his father has removed him from the edited list and therefore obtaining credit becomes a bit more difficult. Those are the problems which may arise. I shall certainly be interested to hear what the Minister thinks about the proposition that each person ought to indicate in a box whether or not they wish to be excluded from the register.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is a useful amendment in a number of senses, in that it focuses on how the opt-out box will work. I hope my comments cover the concerns raised in this short debate and I will just run through the points we wish to make on this issue.
	It is a long-standing feature of our electoral registration arrangements that the electoral registration form is completed by the head of the household. Though that may sound more than a touch paternalistic and old-fashioned, there are good reasons for continuing with this arrangement. First, it significantly reduces the burdens of bureaucracy and the amount of paperwork which electoral registration officers have to process. Secondly, registration officers have no way of knowing when new people move into a household or when children reach voting age. The present arrangement makes the head of the household (who may in practice be any member of it) responsible for ensuring that all eligible people are on the electoral register.
	More importantly, without this arrangement very few of our young people would appear on the electoral register. It is regrettable that so few young people would be bothered to take the initiative to register as electors if left to their own devices but it is certainly not a fact we can ignore. It is, rather, a fact of life. So I hope the Committee will understand why we must preserve the present arrangement under which the electoral registration form is completed by the head of the household.
	However, in future there will be an additional element to the registration form. Next to the name of each elector will be a box that will need to be ticked if that person wishes to opt out of inclusion in the edited register. That is a significant development. We consulted the Data Protection Registrar on the scheme we envisage. She supports it and sees no ECHR implication in it which would cause us any distress. Once there is an opt-out box, the head of a household will need to take reasonable steps to ascertain the preferences of the other members of the household. In the overwhelming majority of cases that would simply involve asking them. But we recognise that there will be cases where that is not possible. What we envisage, for example, in a student hall of residence is that the warden might put up a notice saying that he or she intends to send back the electoral registration form in three weeks' time and that any resident who wished to exercise the right to opt-out should make contact within that period.
	Any head of household who deliberately recorded the preferences of another member of the household falsely would be guilty of the offence of providing false information on the electoral registration form. Quite simply, I cannot see how this can be made to work in any other way without introducing a system of individual registration, which, for the reasons I have already given, would be unsatisfactory.
	I am not sure how the first part of Amendment No. 84 would work without introducing either individual legislation or creating a whole new layer of paperwork and bureaucracy. Also, we believe that the second part of Amendment No. 84 is unnecessary. If noble Lords look at line 30 on page 10, they will see that there is already provision for explaining to the electorate the uses for which the full and edited register can be put. We want the electorate to be able to make an informed choice as to whether to exercise the right to opt out and we want to ensure that they have all the necessary information to enable them to make that choice.
	We have already said that we are happy to work with the industries that currently make use of the electoral register to try to help to settle the content of the explanatory material that is made available to electors. We shall, of course, continue to consult them and to discuss such matters with them.
	As regards Amendment No. 85, we believe that this would probably be superfluous. It will be open to anyone in respect of whom the box was wrongly ticked, or for whom the box was not ticked although he may have wanted it to be, to apply to the registration officer for a correction to be made. That is a very simple procedure in itself. We believe that that negates the need for Amendment No. 85, as drafted. In the light of those fairly clear explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Goodhart: On the basis of what the Minister said, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 86:
	Page 10, line 41, after ("copies") insert ("(or copies on disk or in electronic format)").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that I can deal with this amendment very quickly. I mentioned earlier that the Government are very keen to change us all on to the airwaves--e-mail, Webs and goodness knows what else. Indeed, we are shortly to have a Bill on e-commerce to help us on our merry way into this new world. As I understand it, the electoral roll is already supplied in electronic and computer-oriented forms. Many political parties find that most useful. However, we want to be sure that that practice will continue and that, in addition, the addendum--the rolling register--is also supplied in that form. That is my question both fairly and simply put. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply, although not by e-mail! I beg to move.

Lord Rennard: Amendment No. 90 has been grouped with the noble Lord's amendment. Like Amendment No. 86, it is an important amendment. If I may say so, this is a rather more important debate than the one we had earlier about whether or not to remove the words "for example" from the Bill. The amendment deals with a very practical situation regarding the format of the provision of the electoral register and, in particular, making it free to the parties where it is provided in electronic format.
	At present, someone who satisfies an electoral registration officer that he requires a copy of the electoral register in connection with someone's parliamentary candidature is entitled to free printed copies of it. However, if that copy of the register is required on disk or tape, a charge is made for the supply. I believe that to be something of an anomaly; it also represents a tax on democracy. Moreover, it is bad practice when we consider the environmental consequences.
	Four paper copies of the register are generally supplied free to a political party when it is first published in February. In addition, a Member serving in another place is entitled to a free paper copy and each local councillor is entitled to a free paper copy for the ward that he or she represents. Local election candidates are also entitled to a free paper copy and a parliamentary candidate is entitled, once nominated, to two further free paper copies. This may mean that a political party can effectively claim at least six paper copies of the register in any one year, and sometimes many more.
	A typical constituency register on paper may be printed on about 1,500 sheets of paper. So supplying one party with six copies of it may mean 9,000 sheets of paper, or about six kilograms in weight. That is a huge amount of paper, which is printed and sometimes packaged and posted at considerable expense. We heard much in more controversial debates this evening about the costs to the public purse. This is a way in which I believe that savings to the public purse could be made. All of these paper copies are provided free of charge to each of the political parties.
	However, the supply of the register in computer format attracts a charge to the party, even though it could be provided on a computer disk for as little as, say, 50p or by e-mail at virtually no cost. The charge to political parties for the register in computer format is currently £1.80 per 1,000 names, or about £120 per constituency. Once supplied, however, in electronic format, a party will not generally demand so many paper copies. Perhaps only one is required in order to check the electronic version. Therefore the tax on the provision of the register in electronic format is, I think, unfair if the principle of making the paper lists of voters free to the political parties or potential candidates is accepted. It is, of course, a tax on democracy. In my short time in this Chamber I have heard much from noble Lords about our commitment to democratic principles.
	I believe that there is also growing concern about the environment. Changes elsewhere in this Bill may mean that many more paper copies of the register have to be printed in future. Presumably entitlement to printed copies of a rolling register, regularly updated, will be broadly similar to the present rules. A register updated every month would have to be available in printed format, as is the present annual register. It would not, I think, be satisfactory simply to publish a list of additions and deletions each month. So the amount of paper produced, copying or printing costs and clerical work involved could increase considerably.
	Alternatively, an updated disk could be supplied free to those entitled to free paper copies. The parties should be given the register in suitable computer format free of charge in return for expecting no more than one copy of the printed register. This would not cost much, if it costs anything at all. Indeed, it may well even result in savings when all the costs of producing and distributing paper copies are taken into account, and it would be welcomed by those concerned with the environmental impact of the present system.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can confirm that this is a green Government in the environmental sense at least. I shall deal briefly with the amendments, not least because I am extremely sympathetic to them. As Members of the Committee have said, MPs, councillors and local political parties are entitled to receive paper copies of the register free of charge, but they must pay if they want it in electronic form. This distinction apparently derives from a time when not every register was produced on computer and when provision of data in electronic format was significantly more expensive than provision in paper form. Fortunately technology has moved forward apace and that is no longer the case.
	We believe that a computer disk will be even cheaper in the future. We see no reason why those entitled to a free copy of the electoral register should not receive it in the form which is most convenient to them. This is sad for me as I like reading pieces of paper. I have spent many happy hours reading an electoral register. For some that may be a sad experience, but for me it has often been a great thrill to check it annually to see whether old friends are still in place and so on.
	Therefore we are keen to take this matter forward in discussion with both political parties and electoral administrators. We believe that much progress can be made. We do not believe that an amendment to the Bill is needed for this purpose, as the existing regulation-making powers are, in our view, sufficiently flexible. I believe that that is probably a more efficient way for us to make progress. We are happy to have more discussion. We invite parties to offer their views on this matter. However, we believe that there should be free access to the register in an electronic form.
	As regards the points made about the need constantly to update the rolling register, these are well understood. There is no doubt that we can also include ways of making that accessible in electronic form. I trust that with those assurances noble Lords opposite in both parties will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I thank my noble friend for his comments, which are welcome. When the discussions take place with the electoral registration office and the political parties, will there be discussion on compatibility because there are certain problems relating to the rolling register being compatible with the original register that is produced? I hope that that forms part of the discussion.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am more than happy to give a clear assurance on that point.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That was a satisfactory reply. No doubt these matters will be set out perfectly clearly in the regulations, including the subject of compatibility. I think that all of us who have spoken to the amendment are satisfied with the reply. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bach: moved Amendments Nos. 87 to 89:
	Page 11, line 2, at end insert--
	("( ) Provisions specifying, in relation to any description of persons prescribed by regulations made in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1)(a) above, the purposes for which copies supplied to such persons under such regulations, or information contained in them, may be used whether by such persons or by employees or other persons authorised by them in accordance with regulations to have access to such copies or information contained in them.").
	Page 11, leave out line 19 and insert ("any purposes specified in such regulations or (as the case may be) for which the copies have been supplied in accordance with any such provision.").
	Page 11, line 19, at end insert--
	("( ) Provisions imposing, in relation to persons--
	(a) to whom copies of the full register have been supplied, or information contained in such copies has been disclosed, in accordance with regulations made in pursuance of this paragraph, or
	(b) who otherwise have access to such copies or information,
	prohibitions or restrictions corresponding to those which may be imposed by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above.
	( ) Provisions imposing, in relation to persons involved in the preparation of the full register, prohibitions with respect to supplying copies of the full register and disclosing information contained in it.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 91:
	Page 11, line 27, at end insert ("or
	(b) where such a contravention has occurred on the part of a person in the employment, or otherwise under the direction or control, of a company or other organisation, for--
	(i) a director of the company, or
	(ii) a person concerned with the management of the organisation,
	to have failed to take such steps as it was reasonable for him to take to secure the operation of procedures designed to prevent, so far as reasonably practicable, the occurrence of such contraventions on the part of such persons."").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Borrie: moved Amendment No. 92:
	Page 11, line 27, at end insert--
	( ) After paragraph 13 (offences and supplemental matters) there shall be inserted--
	"13A. Regulations making provisions under paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 above may not be made until six months after the date on which the Representation of the People Act 2000 receives Royal Assent."").

Lord Borrie: I need not detain the Committee long in dealing with this amendment. I gave a number of views during the debate on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I was delighted to have the strong support of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, in expressing my concern about the adverse effects of Clause 9 on legitimate businesses and their customers and the restriction on the availability of the full register for a number of purposes.
	It must be recognised that the Government have made concessions. During the debate in the House of Commons the points which have been repeated here today were made in relation to credit reference agencies, banks and others who want to use the electoral register to check on people's credit-worthiness and it has been said that if that was not permitted, a great number of people would feel socially excluded and would be disadvantaged. I am glad that that concession has been made.
	The amendment seeks to give the Government more time for consultation. They have not adequately dealt with all the various problems and possibilities, many of which have been adverted to in earlier parts of the debate today. Legal points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights and there are legal problems in relation to the EU directive on data protection. While I listened closely to the carefully drafted remarks of my noble friend Lord Bach on that matter--I shall read them even more closely--I have no doubt that it would repay the Government to inquire even further into whether they have the right balance in legal terms as to what can and cannot be permitted under those pieces of legislation. I ask the Government to use the period of time for consultation before making the regulations to look not only at the law but also at what is desirable.
	The direct marketing industry and its customers will still be dissatisfied that the Government have not conceded that they will be allowed the use of the full register in order to check on the correctness of people's addresses against the names they hold. That is extremely useful for customers to ensure that they are not on lists they do not want to be on, and it saves a lot of money, time and trouble for the industry to strike people's names off if they do not match the addresses on the electoral register.
	Verification and validation is an extremely useful exercise for many businesses engaged in mailshots, in selling goods off air or off screen and through e-mail and so on. I am sure that the Government will freely admit that these kinds of trading are increasing--the Government are introducing legislation to deal further with e-commerce--and are important and of significance to millions of customers in this country. It would be a pity if, as a kind of by-product of the Government's good intentions in Clause 9, a lot of people are deprived of the benefits of better devised marketing lists than would otherwise exist if full access to the electoral register is not permitted. In the light of those considerations, I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: I shall be brief. No doubt access to the full electoral register is extremely valuable to direct marketing organisations. It seems unlikely that access to that list is likely to be detrimental to ordinary electors. Nevertheless, it seems that there is no overwhelming public interest in allowing direct marketing organisations to have access to an unedited full register. In those circumstances, the individual elector may say, "I do not wish this information--which I am required by law to provide--to be used for any purpose other than that for which it is collected". I do not see any overwhelming reason to justify going back from that basic principle.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall briefly intervene. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has the good sense of giving the Government some time. As I suggested earlier, the debate on the Bill looks like not only the Government, but all of us, digging a hole, where we keep on digging instead of stopping to ask whether this is the right place to dig the hole, or indeed, as my noble friend Lord Norton suggested, whether we want the hole at all.
	An enormous number of people have written to us on the subject across a wide range of groups which use the register: the Direct Marketing Association; the Association of British Insurers; British bankers; charities that write in disgust; the WWAV Rapp Collins Group; and the ICD group that I mentioned earlier. All those groups have written because they believe that they have a legitimate and arguable use of the full register. I am not going to come down on one side or the other of that argument, but it seems that when the Government start cherry picking and saying, "This use is okay; that use isn't", they will need time to think through clearly what they are doing.
	If the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is correct and many organisations use the full register to clean their existing lists obtained from other sources, we may in fact be increasing the amount of unwanted mail that people receive, especially for households which receive mail addressed to someone who is dead and off the register. I gather that one of the ways in which such lists are drawn up is via the answers to the questionnaires that one is occasionally asked to fill in in shopping malls and going in and out of the airport. Whether I decide to give some answers depends on the approach to me and whether I am in a hurry. Usually I am told that I shall win some great prize. My wife gives me a row three or four months later when I say, "Why are we getting this piece of mail?" I know now that I should not answer any questionnaires from anyone. That is bad news for the marketing industry, of which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was once a distinguished member, but I am afraid--

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The first thing that the noble Lord should do is to find out whether the interviewer is certified as a member of the Market Research Society Interviewer Scheme. If that is the case, and if it is a genuine interview, there is no question whatever that the noble Lord and his wife will be pursued for sales purposes afterwards. Otherwise, the company and the interviewer will be slung out of the Market Research Society.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is certainly useful. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is here this evening. I shall still stick to my original decision not to answer any questionnaires again, unless, of course, the prize is overwhelmingly attractive.
	I believe that many people are concerned about the issue. Once the Government open the door to one group, the danger will be that they will find it difficult to decide where to close the door. I have some sympathy with the Minister on the issue. He might be well advised to take up his noble friend's offer of a nice long period before anything happens.

Lord McNally: I should not move one scintilla from the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, explaining our party's position. However, I feel that this is about the only opportunity I have to confess that, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, getting his kicks by reading the electoral register, I actually like receiving junk mail. If only I had been engaged much earlier in a public relations capacity, I could have explained that the problem is the pejorative name "junk mail". If it had been called "information correspondence", it would have had a much easier ride.
	One of our earlier amendments suggested that people should have the full explanation for removing themselves from the register. Perhaps it will be necessary at some stage for the Direct Marketing Association to embark on a public information campaign. Junk mail is not junk. It is an important industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said, it may be necessary for the Government to give deeper thought to the full consequences of this matter. People may think that they are escaping some terrible burden, but they may also be missing some real benefits and opportunities.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall not extend the debate very much longer. Reference has been made to hole diggers and non-hole diggers and to junk mail junkies and the like. Clearly, this debate could go on for ever. In a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has raised an important issue. The purpose of the amendment is to get us to extend consultation for a further six months. In practice, we shall have a longer period to consider the issue. After all, we are now consulting the industry. That is my understanding. When the draft regulations are published, there will be a further round of consultation. We do not yet have the legislation in place. So I think that we are talking about quite a long way down the road. I should have thought that we should have some continuing discussion and consultation over the next few months. For those reasons, I do not think that adding a further six months' delay on to that will take us much further.
	However, Members of the Committee have made the point that this is a tricky and complex area and one in which there are many issues to be thought through. Some of those issues have already been addressed by the Working Party on Electoral Procedures. That ran from the summer of 1998. No doubt the period between now and when the regulations are finally introduced will provide us with ample time further to polish and consider exactly what we intend to do.
	We think that the legislation is clear. We have a basis on which we can work to consult some more. Clearly, we need to take away some of the points that have been raised in this short debate. We will continue to do that. With that, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Borrie: Assuming that the Minister uses the word "considers" to include "will listen to representations"--I am sure he does--I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Norton of Louth: I shall speak briefly to this issue, although, looking at the clock, I have to say that the last train to get me back to Hull this evening left at 11.10 p.m. and, since the next one is at 6.15 a.m., I may be a little blase about how the proceedings go on. However, I felt I should speak as I had given notice of my intention to oppose the Question, That Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill. I elaborated the reasons for that during the debate on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The Minister in responding focused principally on that amendment.
	The stand part debate on the clause allows the Minister to address the issue quite fundamentally. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish referred to me as an absolutist. I make no apologies for that. It serves certain purposes in forcing us to think back to first principles. What is the purpose of the whole exercise? The Government are proceeding on a number of assumptions about why the register is produced, the way in which it is produced, and the purpose that is served by its availability.
	Earlier, I mentioned the history of the electoral register, why it came into being and why it was published. Some of those reasons may no longer have the force that they once had. There is a danger of the clause, and indeed the Bill, constituting something of a lost opportunity if we do not return to first principles and ask fundamental questions about the nature of the register and in particular, in the context in which we are presently discussing it, its availability, the access that people have to it.
	So we do need to return to first principles, and I fear that the clause does not do that. It does not address the problem. I elaborated my reasons earlier and I do not intend to go over them again now. The clause raises fundamental issues and I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to respond.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord has rehearsed the arguments rather well. He has gone to the heart of the some of the arguments that are collected together in Clause 9. My noble friend Lord Bach gave a clear exposition of the Government's position. However, some of the issues raised are worthy of further consideration. We said that we would look closely at Hansard without commitment and see which further matters need greater elucidation and clarification.
	We believe that the arrangements that we have set out achieve a proper balance, and we think that we can rely on the way in which we intend the clause to work. So, with all the difficulties--there is common agreement that this is a complex area--I commend the clause as drafted to the Committee.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before midnight.